DBWI: Popular Election of US Senators

As this country is heading into a Presidential election this year, I can't help but wonder if the state legislatures should continue to elect Senators rather than giving the vote to all the people. After all, we directly vote for the US House of Representatives.

Looking at the people who serve in the US Senate, I just wonder if any of them could win in a popular vote.

What are your thoughts?
 
I do know one thing: it might just heavily cut back on the insane amount of corruption that seems to be quite prevalent in many states these days......although some fraud is still possible, sadly.
 
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Presidents and Representatives already seem to spend almost as much time campaigning as they do governing. Will tying the senators into the modern media cycle really make the Senate more effective?
 
Partisanship will increase to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. In off-year elections, turnout will be pretty low unless the House gets their term length cut down to two again. This means ideological extremists will be more likely to get elected. Look at Ronald Reagan and Nancy Pelosi. Ever since passing Proposition 14, they've had nothing but radicals in their direct senate elections. Same with Wisconsin. Look at Russ Feingold and Scott Walker.
 
Partisanship will increase to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. In off-year elections, turnout will be pretty low unless the House gets their term length cut down to two again. This means ideological extremists will be more likely to get elected. Look at Ronald Reagan and Nancy Pelosi. Ever since passing Proposition 14, they've had nothing but radicals in their direct senate elections. Same with Wisconsin. Look at Russ Feingold and Scott Walker.

Maybe in the South, yes. But not in the North and West where people are a lot mroe skeptical of right-wingers.
 
Maybe in the South, yes. But not in the North and West where people are a lot mroe skeptical of right-wingers.
The ideological gulf between Reagan and Pelosi, and Walker and Feingold, suggests otherwise. Then again, it might have something to do with the Depression radicalizing the populace.

Hmmm, if this happens early enough, could it stop the rise of the Socialist Party as the main opposition to the GOP? The Democrats lost the West, and then North to the Socialists legislature by legislature. I know it might sound far fetched, since we've only elected Grover Cleveland since the Civil War, but I think it's possible.

Of course, that implies the Progressives are more successful. That means we might see Prohibition enacted, which was possible before the saloon lobby reached it's current power.
 
The ideological gulf between Reagan and Pelosi, and Walker and Feingold, suggests otherwise. Then again, it might have something to do with the Depression radicalizing the populace.

Hmmm, if this happens early enough, could it stop the rise of the Socialist Party as the main opposition to the GOP? The Democrats lost the West, and then North to the Socialists legislature by legislature. I know it might sound far fetched, since we've only elected Grover Cleveland since the Civil War, but I think it's possible.

Of course, that implies the Progressives are more successful. That means we might see Prohibition enacted, which was possible before the saloon lobby reached it's current power.

I doubt it would change much, just move back the political irrelevance of the Democrats for a few decades. The rising tide of the Socialists would not be stopped just because there arent governors like Debs to push his men into the senate.
 
Top