Originally Posted by
Kevrob
Nobody's vote would be taken away. The senators were elected indirectly, by the elected representatives of the people.
That's exactly the way the President is elected, via the Electoral College.
Your example hurts your argument more than helps. The electoral college no longer functions as a two stage "choose the electors who choose the president" process. Instead it's "choose the electors who have decided in advance who they would choose and are often bound by law to choose that person". The indirect mechanism is still present, but instead of providing a check on popular whims it just amplifies the voting power of some states relative to others. You never see an elector campaigning for themself.
As for whether this qualifies as "taking votes away", while I agree that all the people are still represented, though indirectly, they've certainly lost their votes. This is quite clear: they had the right to vote for senators, and on repeal of the 17th amendment they would lose that right.
Originally Posted by
Kevrob
Here's an argument against direct election of Senators:
Since campaign finance reform (sic) was instituted, it has become increasingly difficult to defeat incumbents. The sitting Senator can raise a lot of $, his challenger...not so much.
Unless....
Mr. Challenger happens to be a rich, self-funded candidate, and effectively buys his seat. As a result, the Senate has become a millionaires club, and the rich guys aren't all Republicans. The Dems have their share of Senator Gottbucks.
I agree that the current system doesn't work that well. But elections by the state legislatures would be even more "club" like.