Read on Twitter
This @jodyavirgan and @pastpunditry podcast on the 17th amendment with @jbouie is quite good, but misses the most interesting thing about the 17th amendment, that it was justified in part as a way to free state politics of excessive federal influence https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-amendment-that-changed-the-senate-1913/id1502728938?i=1000470960200
The problem was that state elections turned on national politics. Direct election was seen as a way to separate state legislative elections from this influence (in academic form, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269077, in popular form https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/02/conservatives-17th-amendment-repeal-effort-why-their-plan-will-backfire.html )
Famous example: Lincoln and Douglas weren't on the ballot in 1858. Who in that election was paying attention to whether the state legislature did a good job or bad job of building roads from Chicago to Springfield?!?
One other neat twist -- Lincoln's Republicans probably got more votes, but malapportionment of state legislature led to Douglas's victory
But by the time of the 17th amendment, most states had already moved away from direct state legislative appointment in one way or another -- informal means like the "public canvas" to formal means like the "Oregon System"
If you're interested in the history of the 17th amendment, why efforts to repeal it are bad for state democracy, or the political influence in the Senate of a major figure in 1L procedure classes (John Mitchell of Pennoyer v. Neff fame), check it out https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4962/
