We'd still get the Turtle, Dinghy Harry, and all the other losers. What would change exactly? I don't get it.
Somehow or other they seem to think that the state legislatures will do a better job of holding the senators accountable, and maybe that their tenures will be reduced.
This analysis (
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41545.pdf) shows that the assumption is probably not correct. Senate tenures have been increasing at about the same rate since before the 17th Amendment passed.
IMO there are a couple of reasons for this.
First, voters are not all that engaged. In aggregate they're not particularly inclined to use their votes as a means of holding Senators accountable, and thus tenures have always tended to increase.
Second, the rise of the Professional Politicians: people who have basically never held jobs outside of politics and who therefore have an electoral advantage in both time and organization over those who have to choose between their day job and the demands of an election.
Theoretically, repealing the 17th Amendment would mitigate the advantages of professional politicians by making it easier for people of demonstrated real-world ability to be considered for and appointed to the Senate. In practice, however, the professional politician still has the advantage -- perhaps even a greater advantage -- because he has the time to lobby for his position.
