This @jodyavirgan and @pastpunditry podcast on the 17th amendment with @jbouie is quite good, but misses the most interesting thing about the 17th amendment, that it was justified in part as a way to free state politics of excessive federal influence https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-amendment-that-changed-the-senate-1913/id1502728938?i=1000470960200">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...

The problem was that state elections turned on national politics. Direct election was seen as a way to separate state legislative elections from this influence (in academic form, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269077,">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape... in popular form https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/02/conservatives-17th-amendment-repeal-effort-why-their-plan-will-backfire.html">https://slate.com/news-and-... )

Famous example: Lincoln and Douglas weren& #39;t on the ballot in 1858. Who in that election was paying attention to whether the state legislature did a good job or bad job of building roads from Chicago to Springfield?!?

One other neat twist -- Lincoln& #39;s Republicans probably got more votes, but malapportionment of state legislature led to Douglas& #39;s victory

But by the time of the 17th amendment, most states had already moved away from direct state legislative appointment in one way or another -- informal means like the "public canvas" to formal means like the "Oregon System"

If you& #39;re interested in the history of the 17th amendment, why efforts to repeal it are bad for state democracy, or the political influence in the Senate of a major figure in 1L procedure classes (John Mitchell of Pennoyer v. Neff fame), check it out https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4962/">https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_paper...