Wrong. It never worked as the Founders’ intended. As soon as Senators discovered early on in the 19th century that they had no LEGAL obligation to step down when the opposition party would win the legislature during their term, it ceased to work. It became a thoroughgoing joke by the end of the 19th century and the public demanded they bypass corrupt legislators and elect the Senators directly. It WAS going to be enacted and the state legislatures had to approve it or face defeat at the polls and replacement by those who would.
Section I
The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.Section II
The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced.Section III
No person shall be a senator for more than two consecutive terms.Section IV
All Senators shall be paid by their respective states according to such wages as that State may set; they shall receive no remuneration from the federal government.
Of course they were under no legal obligation to step down before the end of their six year term, why would they? it’s in the Constitution. Have you ever heard of a Senator step down now after their state switches to another party? The Senate was there to represent the states, it now only represents political parties and the corruption is now easier.
As I recall, a 1912 bribery scandal from Illinois — where else? — pushed the Amendment over the finish line for ratification.
So, you are saying that them staying for their 6 year terms as specified by the Constitution rather to than not staying, which was NOT specified by the Constitution, proved that the Framers plan didn’t work?
If I ran things being against the repeal of the 17th amendment would be grounds for zot.