This is pretty interesting. Do you know what the argument was for passing the 17th amendment? What's the downside trade-off?
It seems that what was behind the movement to the popular vote was a strong populist sentiment without clear reason; or at least without a reason that made sense.[1]
Last I checked, bribery and cozy industry relationships in the Senate were not stopped by the 17th amendment. I doubt they will ever stop. Power and money tend to mingle, and that part of human nature will probably never go away.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
[A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]
The current government, when they were the opposition, had called for Senate reforms, including direct elections. Once they got into power, they continued the status quo once they saw how beneficial it would be to them to do so. Funny how that works.
http://volokh.com/2010/11/15/on-the-true-story-of-the-histor...
The upside of direct election is that at least there's a chance that good Senators, not subject to the petty whims of the state houses might make better policy. State legislatures were/are generally the products of political machines and tended to appoint Senators who would advance their aims.
In the 21st century, the power of the corporations, unions and trade associations to manipulate the electorate via mass media is at least as powerful as the political machinery that the 17th amendment attempted to fight.