Checks and balances were not just for the three branches of the Federal government. It's my understanding that Senators were intended to be essentially ambassadors for the separate state to the Federal government. Allowing the state legislature to select the Senators placed more power at the State level. In part because of the 17th amendment, Federal government becomes more powerful while State goverment becomes less so relatively speaking. The selection of Senators was the main check against encroachment on the States by the Feds. State governments are becoming not much more than extensions of the Federal government. I don't what the pre-17th situation was or if it had the effect its proponents expected.
They carp about unfunded mandates, but never turn down goodies from Capitol Hill.
One of the chief complaints from New York politicians-and this was an essential element of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's platform-was that we pay an exorbitant amount of federal taxes without receiving commensurate benefits and services, i.e. handouts, from the federal government.
And to a great degree, this critique is born out by the facts.
However, it has never led New York officeholders or officeseekers-with a few notable exceptions-to lobby for the elimination or reduction of confiscatory tax rates, or to generally embrace the concept of devolution of powers.
If anything, it's prompted them to go in the opposite direction.
I honestly don't see how investing rapacious state lawmakers with more power would solve any of our problems.
For more info about the relative merits of the 17th Amendment see my comment in post #57.