"The genius of the Constitution is that the Founders did not attempt to create a Utopian governing document that suppressed or overcame the negative traits of human nature, but that they counted on those negative traits and set one group of politicians against another as the most effective safeguard against either group growing so powerful as to threaten the liberties of the People of the United States.

As a matter of simple rhetoric, the way the issue was framed, I had been unpersuaded by the argument that the Founders intended senators to "represent their states." Huh? Wouldn't any senator (and the overwhelming majority of the rest of us) quickly insist that senators under the current system of popular election do represent their states?

I didn't understand the issue clearly until I came across a passage that, by adding a single word to the explanation, turned on the light of my understanding. The original purpose of U.S. senators was not to represent the interests of their states generically, but the interests of their state governments and, by definition, the politicians who comprised those state governments.

So, just as the Founders relied on politicians in the U.S. Senate to protect the people from another group of politicians in the executive branch, and vice versa, the Founders similarly counted on politicians in now 50 state capitals -- all intent on maintaining their own power -- to be the surest safeguard, check, and balance against the power and growth of a dictatorial, over-bearing federal government."

In my opinion, scrapping the primary process just because it might look bad in the media is worse than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it's more like giving in to the machinations of those who want to foist upon us the disaster of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  Yes, a protracted primary campaign will be messy, as will be a brokered convention.  What of it?  Would you prefer the neat, machine-like precision of a pre-scripted campaign that will serve as nothing more than a coronation party for the chosen heir-apparent of the party establishment?

Don't forget that the protracted Democrat primary campaign of 2008 (which almost resulted in a brokered convention), created the "Obama is a man of the people" opinion precisely because the contest wasn't resolved until after the last two primaries (South Dakota and Montana, on June 3rd) were in the books.  Because the top two contenders (Obama and Clinton) had carried the primary campaign into all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all five territories, building popular support in each contest, the ultimate popular appeal of "Change We Can Believe In" was well galvanized for the fall's general campaign.

In contrast, the Republican primary campaign of 2008 was a done deal by March 4th, with the media declaring McCain the "presumptive nominee" as early as February 13th.  That was what created the opinion that the GOP is the "party of the elites."  A scripted campaign in which all challengers to the establishment-anointed heir-apparent were brought into line early (the 23 contests taking place after March 4th were effectively pointless) shot down in flames McCain's ability to appeal to the conservative base of the Party of Reagan, and the ongoing Democrat campaign effectively torpedoed his ability to build popular appeal.