Because, as I've stated a million times, the U.S. House represents population interests, and the U.S. Senate represents geographic interests. Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee will never be Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee, because being a legislator from Texas means completely different things in the House and Senate. House districts are vastly different in their constituency than the state has a whole.
Ironically, your comment proves that the anti-17thers pretty much agree wholeheartedly with the liberal subject of this article ("Wahhhh! Abolish the U.S. Senate if it's members aren't chosen the way I want!"), albeit for completely different reasons.
It would actually make more logical sense to abolish most of the STATE Senates, since UNLIKE the U.S. Senate, there really IS no difference between their legislators and state house legislators. BOTH represent population interests (my state house district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat, my state senate district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat) But of the course the anti-17thers seem to think things would be sooooo much better if those state Senates had even more power.
YOu misunderstand my point.
The critics, like this author, are proposing to make the Senate, if it is retained, represent population not territory.
If they were to succeed, what would be the point of retaining two Houses, as you explain in your discussion of state legislature, where it really does make no sense.