“You’re citing Senators appointed by governors on the death of a sitting senator...not selected by state legislatures as per pre-17th Amendment guidelines.”
True, but why would state leges be any different? Same class of political animal.
And you DO know that pre-17th amendment many states were electing Senators popularly anyway. Right?
Not quite. State legislators tend to be a lot more responsive to their constituents. Many are term limited, and I'm not aware of any state legislators that sit comfortably for six long years, although there very well could be some. All that makes them a very different class of political animal.
"And you DO know that pre-17th amendment many states were electing Senators popularly anyway. Right?"
Of course, but I would make two caveats to that. Prior to the passage of the 17th, I would submit that the average voter had a much better grasp of the concepts of federalism and voted accordingly; I would venture a guess that the common mischaracterization of our system as a "democracy" built a lot of steam following that time, and that has been a philosophically detrimental force. My second rejoinder would be that as long as some senate seats were by appointment, it becomes more difficult for labor unions and other lobby groups to nationalize them. You could argue that would free up more resources to target the seats in popularly elected states, but in a sense, they'd only be getting less for more.
As was their right to do however they wanted. The problem is that the States rights were taken away by the 17th amendment.