[mp05]

I think one could make an argument that the US system of governance was designed to encourage "politicking" by populist types in the House. Love him or hate him, LBJ was excellent at this sort of thing and an ideal representative. But I've read a lot of Caro and it seems he feels the US Senate has jumped the shark in this regard. The narrative laments the glory days of high-minded debate and the occasional cane beatings, but it's hard to say if that's Caro's actual view.

But it's fair to argue the Senate wasn't built for politicking, yet that's what it's devolved into. I'm a political layman, but perhaps popular vote of senators is a terrible idea as it discourages people unwilling to play hardball to get involved... these engineers, doctors, scientists, etc. It takes a special kind of thick skin to be in national office and those type of people don't seem to gravitate to science-based fields, but rather law and professional politics.

[taylodl]

I agree on both counts. The House was, by definition, the populist component of the government. That was the only representation that We The People got. The state legislature was supposed to elect the state senators, and the state legislature was to nominate an even smaller group of electorates to choose the president.

But the fact the state legislature elected the state senators reflects your point that the senate was intended to be more "serious."

[mp05]

It's a beautiful system, and it's interesting to think about how things would be different if the 17th Amendment never came about. But this ruling could bring the role of Congress in governance to the forefront again.

[taylodl]

Well, this Congress isn't up to doing its job. All they know how to do is act like Middle Schoolers and run their mouths in front of TV cameras. They have no idea, or experience, with governance.