Editor's Note:
This column is part of an ongoing Wilmington Standard series, "Thought Experiments from AI." Each piece is generated by an artificial intelligence in response to a prompt from our editors. In this installment, we asked: "What would happen in 2026 if the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed and Senators were again chosen by state legislatures?"

A Republic Reconsidered

Picture this: It's the summer of 2026, and in Raleigh, the General Assembly is gathering not just to debate budgets or education bills but to elect North Carolina's next U.S. Senators. Lobbyists, political operatives, and newspaper editors crowd the galleries. No campaign ads run on television. No statewide votes are cast. Instead, 170 state legislators hold the power once exercised by millions of voters.

That's the world we'd enter if the 17th Amendment were repealed — returning the Senate to its original constitutional role as the representative body of the states themselves, not of the people directly. Before 1913, this is how Senators were selected, serving as one step removed from the popular passions of democracy and instead answering to state governments.

Repealing it today would represent the most significant constitutional shift in over a century — one aimed at restoring what the Founders called a "balance of interests" between people and states.

How It Would Work

In this alternate 2026, each state legislature would once again choose its two U.S. Senators. In North Carolina, that choice would rest with the 120 members of the House and 50 of the Senate in Raleigh. Parties would negotiate internally and cast formal votes, much like a parliamentary body selects a prime minister.

Practical questions would quickly arise: Would the majority in the General Assembly appoint both senators from the same party, or would there be deals ensuring bipartisan representation? Would newly elected majorities replace sitting Senators mid-term if their legislative control changed?

Given the current political makeup of North Carolina's legislature — a Republican supermajority — the state's Senate delegation in Washington would almost certainly lean conservative. But in states like California or New York, the reverse would occur. Instead of Senate races decided by expensive media campaigns, outcomes would hinge on statehouse politics.

Who Gains Power

Repealing the 17th Amendment would instantly shift political gravity back toward state capitals. Governors, legislative leaders, and party caucuses would become the new powerbrokers in choosing who represents their states nationally.

For North Carolina, that could mean a stronger institutional link between Raleigh and Washington. If the General Assembly had a direct say in who serves in the U.S. Senate, Senate votes on federal spending, environmental rules, or federal education policy might more closely reflect state government's formal priorities — not the latest public polling.

This system could also reduce the influence of national campaign money. Senate elections have become some of the most expensive in the country — often costing over $100 million per race. Legislative selection would dramatically shrink that number. Yet it could simultaneously increase the influence of lobbyists and insiders working behind closed doors in Raleigh instead of before the eyes of millions of voters.

Would It Improve Governance?

Supporters of repeal would argue that the original system encouraged stability and protected federalism — the idea that states are sovereign partners in the national union. The Senate was designed as a check on rapid, populist swings in the House. Its members were meant to deliberate, not campaign. Under that logic, repealing the 17th would bring the Senate back in line with the Founders' "cooling saucer" vision.

Critics, however, would see the move as deeply undemocratic. Voters would lose their direct voice in choosing Senators, and corruption scandals could easily reemerge. It was, after all, accusations of bribery and deadlocked legislatures that helped drive adoption of the 17th Amendment in the first place. In a modern political environment already viewed skeptically by the public, taking away another direct vote might breed deeper cynicism.

Why It's Unlikely to Happen

Practically speaking, repealing a constitutional amendment is almost impossible. It would require two-thirds approval in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states — a hurdle far higher than simply wishing for change. Few politicians would voluntarily give up a direct electoral connection to their constituents.

In North Carolina, the General Assembly periodically debates federal overreach and "state sovereignty," but most lawmakers would probably hesitate to take away popular elections that even their own voters fought for a century ago. Modern Americans see direct voting as essential to legitimacy.

A Thought Experiment's Lesson

This imagined 2026 reminds us that the U.S. was never meant to be a pure democracy, but a layered republic that filtered decision-making through multiple levels of representation. The Founders understood that unrestrained majorities could be as dangerous as tyrants. Yet they also believed institutions must remain accountable to the people who built them.

Whether or not one believes the 17th Amendment was a misstep, today's Senate — directly elected but increasingly nationalized — reflects broader tensions in American governance: between federal and state power, populism and deliberation, speed and caution. The experiment of repeal, even on paper, helps us see those fault lines more clearly — and reminds North Carolinians that the health of our republic begins not in Washington, but right here in Wilmington.