You keep using terms such as “unworkable” and “not working”. Please provide an example or two of that being the case at the time the 17th was ratified. The modern-day situations that you keep citing are quite possibly effects of having ratified it rather than reasons for doing so in the first place.
And, yes, in answer to your earlier question, I’m well aware of the amendment process. The ability to repeal mistakes is the reason that we don’t have Prohibition today. One amendment repealed an earlier mistaken one.
The example is straightforward, and I’ve cited it repeatedly. The Senate was, by the turn of the 20th century, and indeed even 50 years before that, no longer this body that would jealously defend the rights of states against a federal leviathan. It was once expected of Senators that, even if elected to a 6-year term, if there was a turnover in a given state legislature and they would not be able to follow their instructions, they would step aside and allow the legislature to elect someone who would. That went out the window.
Do some research, read up on the body and those that inhabited it. People knew it was becoming a joke by the end of the 19th century with wealthy individuals bribing legislators for seats. They ceased to represent state interests and began representing certain special interests (namely themselves). There was no longer any resemblance to what the Founding Fathers wanted.
Ceding the power to the people and voters left it up to them to elect the person best able to represent the interests of their state at large. It may not be the most ideal way, but it’s better than a return to a system that had ceased to work and was corrupt.
I have to say at this point, it is simply unimaginable to entrust state legislators with this power again and take away one of our last vestiges of say in our government.