Before the 17th Amendment, the Constitution provided that Senators would be elected by state legislatures. That was so that they would represent the interests of their states.
Given the results of 2010 and 2014, there might be even more Republican senators today under that system.
And not a one of those “Republicans” would be a Conservative.
GOP fully owns 31 chambers, Democrats 11. If the remaining 8 split ones are somehow divided evenly, that makes 70 GOP senators, 30 Dems.
But if McConnell’s still there, Obama still gets his agenda passed.
No senator gets elected without being beholden to party resources, support, money, experts, etc.
Instead of being responsible to party leaders, state appointed senators will be responsible to fewer than a hundred men and women who will closely watch every vote over their entire term.
The restoration of free government is impossible until the 17A is repealed.
If Democrats have to elect Democrat state legislators to get Democrat US senators, what would stop them? People who split tickets now, voting for Republicans at the state level and Democrats at the federal level would just vote Democrat all the way if they have to.
It's not like it was before court-ordered redistricting when a heavily populated urban county and a sparsely populated rural county might each have one state senator. Change the way we elect Senators and people will chose state legislators to get the results they get under the present system.
What would change? Well, if senators are chosen by state legislators rather than by a direct vote of the electorate and Senate seats aren't apportioned by population, then decision-making power will pass to the popularly-elected and more representative House.
Indirectly elected bodies lose power when democratic ideas triumph. What the 17th Amendment did was allow the Senate to keep and enhance its power by making it directly elected and therefore more legitimate in people's eyes.