The party identification of the Senate and state legislator really is of 2ndary concern to the Senates most vital and primary function of protecting the power interest of the individual States.
If we were to remove the 17th we could look at also specifying in that amendment to make sure state legislators cold dynamically recall their senators and give the State Governor the ability to make temporary senate appointees like the president does with regard to ambassadors until such time as the legislator shall decide on a “permanent” one.
Many States already do this with regard to the mob “elected” senate. So I’m not sure any thing other then a mere repeal of the 17th amendment would be necessary.
The bottom line is:
The propose of the senate was vital structurally to our federal system, in that it helped keep the Federal Government in check and hopefully in the inferior position.
Corruption of the senators themselves is a side issue, and of 2ndary importance to their primary and essential function of helping to keep the Federal government in check and reserving the vast bulk of the power most locally.
When we broke the Senate with the 17th amendment in 1913 it should not be a surprise what has happen to us sense.
On all accounts, treaty, judges, bills, appointments, ect... the Senate had veto on all theses things for good reason. Theses things form the first and primary threat the distribution of power, from a federal system of decentralized power to a tyrannical system of highly centralized power.
The Senate must be driven to protect the States power interest jealously and aggressively or it cannot perform its vital function in helping to maintain the balance of power, and thus our constitutional system, which was depended upon the same balance of power for its practical Enforcement.
Post # 93 IMO is the best response on this thread.
Well said, Monoprise.