If the States choose the senators, then the people chosen to be senator will probably look out for the interests of the State. That is the way things were supposed to work. Unfortunately, politicians who are popularly elected just try to take big positions on big issues which sound good to the guys down at the barber shop. In the end, the States lack representation and the country goes down hill too.
17th was a bad thing.
The natural follow up question is, how did so many states vote to ratify this amendment and voluntarily give up their balanced check to the populace?
CCg nails it. The intent of a 2 house congress is that the several States have representation. This is what a federal constitutional republic is all about. 17A effectively DESTROYED the Republic.
About 4 years ago I was in a Big Lots and saw $3 book by Larry Sabado that proposed modifications to the U.S. Constitution. I figured I would be open-minded and see what Larry was proposing... and when I got to the part where he proposed that Article 1, Section 3 be modified to give more populous states more seats in the Senate, with senators being elected by popular vote, I closed the book and heaved it across the room at the wall.
Imbecile. ZERO grasp upon the original intent of the Senate. ZERO grasp of how critically important the decentralization of power is to a federal republic.
Voters were once able to directly influence how their statehouse acted and who it might send to Washington D.C. It put the power directly in the voting district, where if a state representative refused the will of the people that elected him, that representative was, minimally, removed from office. At worst, his home could be burned to the ground by an angry mob as they found the nearest tree to hang him from by the neck with a rope.
That is how it “should be”, IMHO.
The 17th amendment has made it much more probable that our elected Senators become influenced from movements out of their state.