The body of “the people” elect their state representatives and their state senators and their governors.
Then the body of “the people” felt their state representatives, state senators, and governors were corrupted;
and that, therefore, the U.S. Senate appointment process was corrupted.
But yet, somehow, “the people” thought that their wisdom in direct selection of their own U. S. Senators would be better
than their wisdom in selecting their state representatives, state senators, and governors.
If “the people”’s state representatives and their state senators and their governors were corrupt, it is likely due to a corrupt people.
Having “the people” directly elect their own U.S. Senators solved absolutely nothing; but it created a much bigger problem.
By that measure, that would make me corrupt. I do not support either my liberal Democrat Congressmember, VRA-mandated moonbat liberal Democrat State Senator, or liberal Democrat State Representative.
"Having “the people” directly elect their own U.S. Senators solved absolutely nothing; but it created a much bigger problem."
It forced Senators to be directly accountable to the people, rather than a small group of government people they could threaten and bribe (or both). To say making them accountable where they weren't before has created a "much bigger problem" is a highly debatable point. The kind of Senators you want to elect were done under an 18th and 19th century electorate, which doesn't exist now.
Look at what happened when the democrat party got popular, elective majorities in the 1930s, 1960s and 2008. It was only then, when social justice claptrap like the New Deal, Great Society and Obamunism could flourish.
It was all made possible by Senators who advanced expensive freebies to the faction that put them in power, the mob.