That's fairy-tale land stuff, pal.
Which is why they wouldn't respond to any of the points you made in #35, either. The biggest problem is the "Repeal the 17th amendment crowd!!" wants to live in a pretend world and discuss state legislatures as they existed in 1789, not as they currently exist in the 21st century. Their whole argument rests on the concept that repealing the 17th amendment would someone how magically cause state governments to revert back to the 18th century counterparts once they had the power to name Senators.
It would be like me demanding a repeal of the 12th amendment and continually insisting a John Adams like statesman would become Obama's veep, since that's who was veep when the constitution went into effect, and continually ignoring every post that proved Mitt Romney would automatically get the job because he's next in line under the current government.
Basically, this is how the U.S. Senate would look according to the anti-17th amendment crowd.
Not really. Directly elected Senators don’t represent the states as originally intended and pretty much fuel the growth of the federal government because that is their power base. They have no incentive to defend their state from unfunded mandates and encroachments on state powers because all they need to curry favor with is some deep pocket donors and the media.
Appointed senators are beholden to the state legislature that sent them so they will be far more vigilant in taking the states side in the above mentioned items. Their power base will be at the state level with their state level colleagues in the legislature.
The 17th amendment really jump started the progressive takeover of the federal government.