RangerDave wrote:
e.g., loss of accountability to the public, increased party control of officials (say goodbye to third parties), "nationalization" of local politics, etc.
There's already no accountability to the public, and, well ... we've already had a number of arguments about the effects of popular election of senators. As counter-intuitive as it might sound, I'm coming to believe that popular election of senators has actually
decreased government accountability.
As for 3rd parties, it's generally much easier to get a 3rd party or independent candidate elected to a state legislature than a national one. If anything, I think this would be a win for 3rd parties.
And I don't see where "nationalization of local politics", as you put it, is bad thing. Senators are
supposed to represent their state on the national platform. That's rather the point of the Senate. In contrast, the House represents the
people of the States (which is where you would really see local politics playing out on the national stage, anyway). That was rather the whole point of having a bicameral Congress in the first place. It was never intended to function with both houses being subject to direct, popular election. It's all about checks and balances. The House was to be a check against the potential abuses of indirect election, while the Senate was to be a check against the abuses of popular election.
Especially since the U.S. population has grown far beyond what the authors of the Constitution anticipated, let alone dealt with in their own time, I believe this division has become more important than ever.
Something has to balance out the pressures of both mob mentality and the ever increasingly diluted popular vote (especially in high population states).