Quote:When you consider that the intention was to prevent an all-powerful federal government then having a specific portion of that government responsible only to the member states made perfect sense. The 17th contributed more to the demise of Federalism and State's rights than anything outside the Civil War itself. Now we have a federal government who takes from the states as it sees fit and then turns around and bullies them to enact legislation using the very funds they've taken from those states. As for corruption, it's not like it got better, D.C is still the hive of scum and villany its always been.

 

But don't you think that if we have state legislators electing our Senators, then the big money will start flowing into the campaign coffers of state legislators, and Pacs will be set up to elect state legislators who will vote for certain Senate candidates, and the corruption in Washington will make its way into our state legislatures (if it's not there already)?  

 

Plus, when I decide whom to vote for in a state legislative race, should my decision be based on how that legislator would cast his vote for Senator?   Or should it be based on how that person would represent me in the state legislature?  

 

If candidates for state legislature run a campaign based on how they will cast their vote for US Senator, as they inevitably would, why wouldn't I want to cast a direct vote for US Senate candidate X, instead of voting for someone who has pledged to vote for US Senate candidate X?

 

Besides, I just cannot go along with the idea that having someone select my US Senator for me will result in that Senator representing me better than if I voted for him directly. 

 

Finally, and this is not an argument against it, do you think a repeal of the 17th Amendment would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing?   Especially since it would require a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate to be initiated in the first place?  

---