I wouldn’t have any huge objection to having state legislatures elect senators. It is a manifestation of late 19th century populism (of which evangelicals were the vanguard).
Nonetheless, I think it’s a pipedream to think that a change like that would have much substantive impact on policy outcomes.
Besides, if you could get mass political support to repeal the 17th amendment, you’d also have an effective majority in favor of electing senators who would support the same policies that repeal of the 17th amendment would ostensibly induce.
Why not take the more direct route, then, and simply win the political argument?
Just to be clear: direct election of senators is a manifestation of late-19th century populism. My not having any huge objection to repealing the 17th amendment is not a manifestation of late-19th century populism.
I wouldn’t have any huge objection to having state legislatures elect senators. It is a manifestation of late 19th century populism (of which evangelicals were the vanguard).
Nonetheless, I think it’s a pipedream to think that a change like that would have much substantive impact on policy outcomes.
Besides, if you could get mass political support to repeal the 17th amendment, you’d also have an effective majority in favor of electing senators who would support the same policies that repeal of the 17th amendment would ostensibly induce.
Why not take the more direct route, then, and simply win the political argument?
Just to be clear: direct election of senators is a manifestation of late-19th century populism. My not having any huge objection to repealing the 17th amendment is not a manifestation of late-19th century populism.