You have my attention. What is your take on why the 17th was amended? I am pretty sure that what I have read is not in congruence with your thoughts, but I am willing to listen to what you think about he events leading up to the 17th..
It was reaching critical mass by the end of the 19th century that the public wished to vote on their Senators. The members had been seen as corrupt, representing special interests (specific industries, to which said Senator would often have personal stake in), and you had frequent attempts of vote-buying of legislators, some under the table, some far more audacious.
It was no grand conspiracy by the left to overturn the Founders, it was an angry public fed up with an elitist and corrupted body. The state legislators recognized that and ratified the 17th one by one.
For those that think the body would miraculously return to having statesmen of the caliber of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, et al, are going to be in for a shock. You wouldn’t even be able to get Ted Cruz into the Senate today. You’d have even bigger moonbats from Democrat states, utterly insulated from the public, and you’d have RINO hacks (think Graham of SC) from Republican ones. Texas would have Karl Rove and David Dewhurst as its Senators today.