That being said, there is a small likelihood that such a repeal would find favor even in an Article V convention because it runs against politically correct notions of democracy. Since the progressive movement generations have been brainwashed that more democracy is better than less and those who favor centralized government in Washington will be sure to argue that repeal of direct election of Senators is antidemocratic. The media will certainly be against it as will the blue states.
In the Context of an Article V movement, I wonder if the prize is worth the cost of political capital. I see the main problem to be rooted in the federal income tax which acts as a fire hose pouring money into Washington which it then distributes back to the states, albeit with strings attached, as bribes. Worse, the federal government now has virtually unlimited constitutional and legal power to borrow and, until the market crashes us back to reality, these monies are also funneled out to the states so that this combination of tax funds and borrowed money creates irresistible catnip to the voters who demand more and more.
Even with the election of senators by state legislatures I don't think the human nature will radically change. In other words state legislators are not more moral than federal legislators by nature and it will not take them long to send senators to Washington who will funnel money back to state legislators to distribute. We saw this him at work in the passage of Obamacare in which Democrat senators from states like Nebraska and Louisiana brought special advantages back to their states in return for their votes. I don't think that practice will change merely because the senator is elected by cronies in the state legislature because I don't think human nature is likely to change with the repeal of the 17th amendment. The root of the problem is in the income tax and the spraying out of money.
It is conservative to attempt to effect structural reforms rather than conceive that we have the godlike power to change human nature. The founders were wary of too much democracy and that's why they limited direct participation by the public in the election of federal officials to the House of Representatives. They were preoccupied with creating a structure that would limit the damage that humans with human nature would commit if operating unchecked. So they provided some direct election to check the power of the elites and they had institutions checking other institutions. The 17th amendment distorted the system by rendering the states less able to check the federal government. But worse structural distortions have occurred by the passage of the income tax and by the accretions of laws and Supreme Court decisions.
Therefore, if it is a question of allocating limited political capital, I would like to see The Article V movement direct its energies toward reform of taxes and other structural reforms such as the requirement that regulations must be ratified by Congress . If we have ample political capital, I would certainly spend it on repealing the 17th amendment. I hope you don't find my lack of relative enthusiasm too disappointing.
