Actually, it doesn't seem to be much of a bother at all to the left, or any other big government advocates.
How do you know the electing of Senators by their representative state legislature was not empowering to the states? Where is that stated?
The reasoning is laid out in the essay I quoted.
I think that Senators are much less likely to represent their state when they have to raise funds from outside special interests to get reelected, than raising favor from their own state of residence.
I think that we need a federal system without direct taxation. As long as the taxpayers are footing the bill, you have a corrupt spoils system.
What we need is a way for the feds to tax the states, not the people. That would be a federal system, as opposed to the national system we have. You just need a way to ensure that the states pay up. It was that problem that led the US off track back in the 1780s. Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease. We need to get back to a truly federal system.
Under such a system, states would not be looking for federal aid--they'd be paying it. Then the states would be a real check on the feds, because whatever the feds decided to spend, the states would have to collect from their constituents. As it is, they are no check at all. Check cashers, but not a check on the system.
The mode of electing senators changes nothing. It's all about money and power. As long as the national government has the power it has, the states are mere clients.
Look in the Federalist papers #21 on the issue of how to equitably tax the nation. Property values were adequate for local tax basis. But on a national basis property values differed so much that the taxation could not be equitable between states.
Jefferson instead used a similar formula 200 years ahead of the Laffer Curve on economics and concluded the most equitable form of taxation was a consumption tax. Now known as the Fair Tax.