Originally Posted By TomSawyer Originally, Senators were selected by state governments and weren't directly elected by the people. The idea was that the Senate would represent the interests of the state governments and would focus on those issues that arise between the sovereign states, as well as giving the states a forum for dealing with international issues. Only later did the Senate become popularly elected. I'm curious what we think would happen if we still did that or went back to that? I like the idea of the states as sovereign entities brought together to deal with interstate and international issues with a common front. I think a Senate that represented state governments rather than individuals could be more inclined to provide better, more rational governance than just pandering to the emotions of the electorate at the time of the election. Senators could be chosen by effectiveness of winning debates and building consensus rather than which one has better commercials and sound bites. Obviously, the party that controls a state legislature would be able to determine who was sent to the Senate, but their effectiveness would still be measured by how much they got done, not by how much they could raise and how many commercials they could make. What do you think? Would returning to the original intent of the founders still work? Should the Senators be selected by the state governments rather than popularly elected? (I'm for it. I think the founders were right to design a Senate filled with statesmen.)
