Specifically, they strenuously object to the constitutional amendment allowing individual citizens to elect Senators rather than government bureaucrats. They claim this has lead to the "downfall" of America and all the problems in the U.S. Senate can be blamed on voters choosing the Senators. They claim this is an example of "direct democracy" and mob rule (you can see examples on this very thread), when in fact the U.S. Senate is a representative body --- each Senator represents hundreds of thousands of people -- that is far removed from "directly" allowing citizens to pass any laws. They insist crooked government bureaucrats would appoint far superior Senators and that we can't trust ordinary citizens to make that decision.
They also strenuously object to other reforms allowing more democracy, like direct initiative and recall, claiming this is all part of an evil plot to "destroy the Republic", part of an evil scheme from 1913.
Personally I think those "conservatives" might want to spent a few months living in the "worker's paradise" of the Republic of Cuba, since they detest the idea of representative "democracy" so much.
Your summary of the issues and changes wrought by the 17th is inaccurate.
Most free republic concerns in that area are due to having the Senators no longer sensitive to the issues of the individual state that sent them, but instead thinking of a higher publlic “general will” and being less regional.
Representative government with very very diverse forms of democratic processes giving the various members to the government is defended in the Federalist Papers, I don’t need to do it here. The limitations of Parlimentary Democracy, or worse, pure democracy, can be debated if you want us to switch to it. Find a supporting article and post it and please ping me.
It was no small chance that the Federal income tax and the 17th came at about the same time.
Those Freepers who argue we are not a democracy are correct as far as that goes. We are a representative democracy in the framework of a Constitutional Republic.
However, those detractors of the 17th amendment have valid points, but I would say that is because of the weakening of state’s rights, not because it makes a more direct nod towards pure democracy. That is the context I have seen discussions in.
The original purpose was that senators would be the direct representatives of the state governments at the Federal level and ensure the state’s interests were represented. That was diluted (in their opinion, and I agree) by the passage of the 17th Amendment.
That is their issue and why many of them think the 17th Amendment should be repealed. To them, it is a state rights issue, and they are pretty passionate about it.
I think they should be. We all should be.
What we see here as a culmination of the last 75 years is a Federal Government out of control, and the states have no say in affairs now.