On repealing the 17th Amendment

He’s talking about pre-17th. When the members of a state legislature choose senators, gerrymandering is very relevant, as it can distort the makeup of a legislature.

Party X controls state legislature. Party X redraws legislative districts to ensure a legislative majority by packing Party Y’s voters into districts with higher populations. 17th Amendment repealed; Party X now gets to choose state’s senators indefinitely.

Which is just one of the reasons that any attempt to repeal the 17th will fail. Legislators introduce all kinds of wack-a-doodle bills for various reasons. That doesn’t mean the bills have any hope of passing. I doubt that a bill to repeal the 17th Amendment would have any more popular support among Senators, or voters, than Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill S.2095, which attempts to ban firearms again.

for political reference -
S.2095 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2017
115th Congress (2017-2018)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/cosponsors

Some bills are just meant to die in committee, or on the floor.

With the ultra-partisan state of politics right now it would be difficult to get any amendment passed (which is what a repeal is, a new amendment). Anything that would pass would have to be so innocuous that it shouldn’t really be in the Constitution.

The idolatry of the Founding Fathers can get a bit annoying. Especially when the framers themselves put in an amendment process.

So far only one of the amendments has gotten the outright “ooookayy, damn, THAT was a mistake” heave-ho, and because it was obvious almost from day one.

I think it’s nonsense to talk about a state or a district or even a country having interests that need to be represented. People have interests. Senators represent the people of their state and they should therefore be chosen by those people.

Fine, then we should adjust the Congress to unicameral to reflect reality, and quit pretending that it is bi-cameral.

Bicameralism doesn’t depend on the Senate representing state interests. We have what, like 49 state legislatures that are bicameral. Quite a few countries have bicameral legislatures.

What is the need to “reflect reality,” and what reality are you talking about?

That’s a separate issue. You can argue that the people of Wyoming have common interests and are entitled to equal representation with the people of California in one half of Congress. A unicameral Congress would not address this.

The idea that states should be represented on the legislature is an outdated and anti democratic one that serves no legitimate purpose in the modern era, and like the Electoral Collwge creates a big risk of handing power to a minority for without any articulable rational basis, the same as partisan gerrymandering.

The purpose of having a Senate at this point is to have a portion of the legislature that changes more slowly than the House of Representatives. That is of potential significant value in terms of balancing rational policy making with democratic representation.

The notion that states have “interests” independent of those of their residents is patently absurd.

As to Bicameral Vs. Unicameral at the state level doing away with the State Senate actually makes sense as, at the state level, both houses are districted based on population.

That’s because you weren’t the highest bidder.
Anyway, what if we split the difference? One elected at large by the population, and one selected by the state’s legislature.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of populating the senate.

This is so obviously true that I can’t take seriously any argument for it. The sole reason to give “states” representation is to hand power to some favored group that doesn’t have the support of the majority of the public.

I think this is the real issue here. The people advocating for this cause don’t give a damn about any principle. They’re just looking for another avenue to use to bypass the outcome of popular elections they don’t win.

So matters of constitutionality are settled by brute force and not wise old people in robes? Tell me more.

So jerrymander the vote in the states, control the legislature, control the state’s two US senators and make them beholden to the state party?

I don’t think we need less democratic representation.

The reality that the original constitution framework set up a Congress with 2 bodies (bi-cameral).

One of them represented the people and were directly elected by them.

The other represented the states. To be fair, democracy was still an element because the people did elect their state legislatures.

With the direct election of Senators the framework of the Constitution was obfuscated.

It’s clearer, simpler, and more rational to change the Congress to a Unicameral body to make it more in tune with what is actually happening on the ground.

No, not obfuscated. Changed.

There’s nothing “happening on the ground” that makes it better or worse to have a unicameral legislature.

Even better words (I have the best words) might be evolved or developed.

The committee who wrote that political compromise document expected and wanted that to happen; that’s why they put in the procedures to amend it.

What happened in the Civil War that was not enacted constitutionally and ratified by said robe-wearers? Tell us more.