Comment: Fine, I'll do it sentence by sentence

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You've missed the point not (see in situ)

Fine, I'll do it sentence by sentence

"If Senators were still constitutionally appointed as our founders intended, those "federal" funds would have remained primarily at the level of state government and never left home for the robbers in the District of Columbia."

I see no reason to believe this. If I were a state government shill I would love it if the federal government did all my taxing for me. This way 1) I don't get blamed for high taxes, 2) it's cheaper to get a check in the mail of tax revenues already raised from the federal government than to maintain a tax extraction system of my own, so i can hide the true cost of state governance, 3) if somehow the 17th amendment is repealed, we still have the 16th amendment and years of Supreme Court precedent on taxation powers of the federal government

"The robbers in the District of Columbia simply redistribute a minor portion of the confiscated wealth to the people with strings attached."

Agree

"Again, state governments are accountable to the people and therefore appointed US Senators are INDIRECTLY accountable to the people as well."

I'll accept for the sake of argument that state governments are more responsive to its citizens (i.e. there is a greater sense of democracy, a term often maligned on this website, at the state level.). My problem isn't with the accountability of Senators under a repealed 17th amendment scheme.

"Thankfully, the accountability of state government will mainly fall to the INFORMED and active segment of the people while the UNINFORMED and inactive couch potatoes stay at home."

Again, see no reason to believe this. The main goal of the Senators will still be to represent their states, although now it's not (as you say yourself), directly to represent the people of the states, but to instead represent the interests of the state politicians. Now, perhaps having the states choose senators will mean more people will pay attention to state politics than they do now, and maybe you think that's good. But that's just taking the problem that exists now and moving it down a level, with the same population vying to get their candidate elected via voting for state candidates rather than directly voting for senators. So in that case you wouldn't have just the "informed" people making the decision. Or, perhaps people will still ignore state politics like they largely do now. So then the state politicians are given freedom to make their own choices o nwho they want to represent them at the federal level without fearing getting voted out of office. So who will they choose? The candidates that benefit them the most-- the ones who will give them the most money, the most special favors from the federal government. Largely how it exists now. So what is gained from all of this?