We will have to agree to disagree.
While I hold no naivety that repeal of the 17th would be the panacea you seemingly attach to all who advocate it, I do appreciate the system our forefathers put in place.
... Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests. And its remedy would be achievable by the vigilance of voters for more responsive state legislative seats (typically, about less than 50,000 residences per state legislator), rather than Senate seats (the entire population of the state -- usually millions.) ...
If your particular situation is untenable, you could always vote with your feet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437459/posts
This was the original discussion thread back from January on Blankley’s article. I was just as aggressively defending the 17th in that thread, making the same points as I have here, with a special emphasis on the fact that the 17th enables the Republican party to conceivably be competitive in every state to elect a Senator. Repeal of the 17th would immediately make it impossible in roughly 29 states for the Republicans to win a seat. Do the math and that means we couldn’t win but 1 more seat than we currently have — a potential permanent minority.
As for my voting with my feet, I don’t have the means or capability to do so at present.