Don’t be cute. The designers set up the system, where state legislators chose federal senators. So, yes, you are calling into question the wisdom of those who designed the system.
You think our system works better under the 17th Amd? I could not disagree more strongly. The 17th removed the teeth from the 10th, and placed the states further under the thumbs of federal power, further distancing the people from direct control. That may seem counter-intuitive, but ...
People hold much more control over their state senator, since state senators are elected by district, rather than via a state-wide popular vote. Thus urban areas cannot run roughshod over the rural population. Moreover, several states have enacted TERM LIMITS upon their legislatures. Try passing such a restriction at the national level! It all comes down to subsidiarity - where the greater power is vested at the lower levels of governance, closer to the people, rather than concentrated at the top.
Now their can be no real check on federal power, exercised by the states, as was possible prior to the ratification of the 17th Amd.
Hell yes I think it’s better now. It was changed for good reason, the process was terribly corrupt. Since they aren’t idiots like people today that claim to speak for them, I’m sure a great number of the founders would have been in favor of passing the 17th as most of the country overwhelmingly was.
I don’t want a bunch of politicians making the choice, the idea that it would result in less government is ludicrous. State legislators on balance care no more for liberty than members of congress, politicians are politicians. Ridiculous fantasy. Texas would have Dewhurst instead of Cruz.
You've never been to Illinois or other Democrat-run states, have you ?