I’ve reviewed it from every which way (indeed, I’ve researched every person to have ever held a seat in Congress), and what you think will happen (in a positive way with a better class of Senators and perhaps state legislators) simply won’t. I suggest taking a look what happened during the last decades from the 19th century through to the ratification of the 17th. There’s a reason why it was passed. Big money, special interests, personal fiefdoms, hackery and the like... it was all there, and many of them were not “high minded” of the Constitution and states rights. With the people having a direct say, it levelled the playing field a bit. It’s better how it is now.
“Big money, special interests, personal fiefdoms, hackery and the like...”
Yes, things sure have changed!
The 17th is not about producing a better class of Senators, it's about restoring state's rights and making the senators more beholden to the state.
When the 17th was ratified, it formally changed our form of government from a representative republic to a true democracy (i.e. mob rule). When you look at the makeup of the Senate today, you have a group of people who are literally beholden to power brokers and big money types, NOT their state or the needs of the states. That's what's been lost in the mix.
True, prior to passage of the 17th, the corruption of the state legislatures ran rampant but, IMO, that can be more easily controlled today.
Interesting. So you haven’t found instances where the senators actually represented their state and its constitutional interests vs. those of the people of the state?