17th AMENDMENT: Why it fails test

The editorial of July 21 regarding the State Republican Convention and the fractured direction of the Republican Party was mostly on target. However I offer a counter argument regarding the advisability of repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, knowing it won’t happen. 

The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators replacing the original procedure whereby members of the House of Representatives (the people’s house) were directly elected, and Senators were elected by the respective State Legislatures. At first this would seem to be an obvious improvement i.e. “Power to the People.” The problem in the television age is that with a pretty smile and a red ribbon tied around him or her you can elect anyone. Witness the empty suit, former “community organizer,” currently occupying the White House. Ever wonder who is pulling his strings? He would never have been elected if it was by delegates selected at party conventions who have some knowledge of the substance, capability and integrity of the candidates. 

Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as our best president. Being less than handsome and with a squeaky voice what would be his chance of being elected today? 

Likewise U.S. Senators. The same concerns apply. I would prefer a candidate selected by the legislature to one by popular vote, especially in large states where, unlike Idaho, there is little opportunity to know the candidates. Sure there is the “smoke filled room” issue. However a candidate of substance will emerge from the smoke filled room because those selecting will know the individual, and be familiar with the issues facing the state. I’ll take the smoke filled room over the judgment of apathetic, ill-informed voters choosing the shiniest smile. Besides they get to choose members of the House. 

D. DEAN HAAGENSON

Hayden Lake