Or it would be, if it had a chance of being enacted. I knew that Zell Miller had been talking about it, but I hadn't realized that he has introduced a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Wow Rand, I think we actually found something
political that we agree on. It would be awesome
if it had any chance of passing. ~Jon

As a monarchist (and a supporter of states’ rights within the federal Union) I, too, support the idea that the 17th should be repealed.

Just as long as they never touch the Third.

Of all the methods for picking US Senators, why would anyone want them to be picked by state govts?

Yes, I know that the US Senate was "intended" to represent state govt interests, but I don't understand why that's a good thing.

Andy, did you read the link? It explains why it would be a good thing, unless you disagree with the author, in which case you should explain why you do so.

What Raoul, you got something against boarding soldiers? You don't support our troops?

Hmmm, I'm not sure. Certainly, I don't see the compelling argument here that will overturn an amendment.

Good article in favor of repeal here by John Dean.

A couple of possible arguments against repeal might include the difference in the extent of media markets now vs the nineteenth century-which makes direct election more practical; and the more pervasive nature of "special interests"; for example, the current Texas ledge was brought and payed for by the tort reform lobby and Tom Delay's PAC.

One compromise might be the Australian approach, which involves a voting system so complex for their Senate that no-one has a clue who actually will get elected, so it is effectively indirect. The result is constitutional crisis occur like clockwork.

A better argument is though the Senate is flawed, the U. S.
House is deeply screwed up (gerrymandering). State ledges effectively elect Representatives in the larger states; while the Senate has proven more responsive to the mood of the voters in post '94 elections. The two bodies have effectively switched places!

The best solution to the deadlock problem is not going for a state plurality, as proposed by Dean above - it is abolishing State Senates. Since the Supreme Court forced them to be districted on a per head basis, they really have no purpose. Checks and balances can be provided by proportional voting systems (e.g. New Zealand or Norway).

One thing that Jesse Ventura did get right.

Well, it's hard to imagine a state legislature selling a Senate seat today as blatantly as Jay Corzine spent his way to his current seat in New Jersey.

The real point is not that the state legs would then appoint the senators again, it's that the states would have the choice of how they would be selected. Most would probably remain elected, but states could experiment again.

As for unicameral legislatures, is there any evidence that Nebraska (which has been unicameral for ages) is conspicuously better-governed than, say, Iowa, South Dakota, or Minnesota? Maybe we should revisit the decision that says upper houses must be apportioned identically to lower ones. I recall one of the points the Supremes made in that decision was that states do not have a genuinely federal nature. What if a state did move in that direction? California or New York, both of which might benefit? That might permit a federal approach to a state upper house within the scope of the Court's decision.

Well , Minnesota just deadlocked on its budget - so that is one datapoint.

The performance of the Nebraska Unicameral can probably be extrapolated from the performance of the Huskers in any given year. I'm curious as to how the nonpartisan element works.

In New Zealand we had a constituency-based unicarmeral which was dumped after a strange episode involving right-wing socialists and free market leftists, both utterly unconstrained after election. We eventually settled on a "mixed member proportional" system which brought every fruit-cake party out of the woodwork, but prevented dangerous majorities in Parliament. The result is a circus which is colorful and ineffectual most of the time, but functions when it needs to - the way government probably should behave.

As for "federalizing" states, while NY, Fl, TX and CA have clear lines along which they might be subdivided, if it is along population lines it is not clear what you have gained. And the trouble of adding yet another layer of government might outweight the benefits of reapportioning upper houses.

One giant elephant in the room not made clear in either article is the primary reason for the Senate was preventing Deleware- and Rhode Island-sized divots in the coastal border of the United States. As these states originated primarily through religious motivations, one might conclude that the First Amendment retrospectively obviates the need for a federal Senate in the first place.