Todd Zywicki argues against an article by David Gans who points out the problems that were meant to be solved by the 17th Amendment:
[T]he system led to rampant and blatant corruption, letting corporations and other moneyed interests effectively buy U.S. Senators, and tied state legislatures up in numerous, lengthy deadlocks over whom to send to Washington, leaving those bodies with far less time to devote to the job of enacting the laws their states needed for the welfare of the people. These ills made the case for bringing the election of Senators in line with the Constitutionâ€™s fundamental values of protecting democracy and securing the right to vote to all Americans a very strong one.
Deadlocked state legislatures? You say that like it’s a bad thing. And I’d suggest we could use a more business friendly Senate these days anyway. And what’s this about the Constitution protecting democracy? I want the Constitution to protect rights. I could give a rat’s behind about democracy. Democracy hasn’t done so wonderfully for getting politicians to but their noises out of where it doesn’t belong. Truth is, I’m skeptical of the claim that repealing the 17th Amendment is going to make things any better, but if deadlocked state legislatures, fighting over who to send to Washington is a possible result, maybe I ought to get on board the repeal train.