Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
Whether appointed by the Governor and subject to ratification of a State legislative body as some proposals call for, or simply elected by State legislatures (as practiced before the 17th Amendment with the attendant additional problems of deadlocks), it's still a horrible idea. Take Texas. If you let the Republicans pick a Senator, you'll get a party hack who is the most extreme ideologue available like Jeb Hensnarling or John Culberson. It will cause more polarization, not less. In California, a moderate like Diane Feinstein wouldn't stand a prayer. You might still have Barbara Boxer, but along with her, you'd have Jerry Brown or Willie Brown. In New York, you'd have Laura DeRosa and Jerry Nadler.
|
with regards to deadlocks, from what I read on it, the deadlocks were an issue only when new states joined the union and the new majority party in those states didn't have very strong party discipline. Once they got the hang of the process, it wasn't that much of an issue. Those deadlocks is not what drove the passage of the 17th admendment.
Before the passage of the 17th admendment, I've noticed accounts where a couple of states then later a bunch of other states, where they decided to vote senators by popular vote, but didn't what they did violate the constitution as it required senators to be appointed by the legislature.
