It was precisely that “check and balance” you cited that ended long before the repeal of the 17th. Senators were doing as THEY pleased, often to advance their own personal interests, not the states. The elections themselves were sideshows by the end of the 19th century. It wasn’t “sold” to the public, they could see what a joke it was with their own eyes and were demanding direct accountability to ending the corrupt practices.
The ideal of the Founding Fathers was to have said members serving the explicit interests of the states, and that they were to effectively serve at the pleasure of the given party or ideological majority of the state legislatures, and if they did not vote as asked, they were to gracefully step aside. Some members actually did just that, but only very early on, and then many more refused to give up their power or guaranteed terms and held on, regardless of how the legislatures wanted them to vote.
We end up with a system where even the intent of checks and balances is removed, yet we a Senate that is more corrupt than it has ever been....yet some people still defend the 17th amendment. It's mind boggling.
