17th Amendment started the decline of the American Republic.

Alexis de Tocqueville:
An aristocratic Frenchman who came to the U.S. in 1831 -- when he was only 25 years old -- and later wrote Democracy in America, a two-volume study of the American people and their political institutions. The book is frequently quoted by journalists and politicians.

“There are some laws, democratic in their nature, which nonetheless succeed in partially correcting democracy's dangerous instincts.”

“When one enters the House of Representatives at Washington, one is struck by the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. One can often look in vain for a single famous man. Almost all the members are obscure people whose names form no picture in one's mind. They are mostly village lawyers, tradesmen, or even men of the lowest classes. In a country where education is spread almost universally, it is said that the people's representatives do not always know how to write correctly.
A couple of paces away is the entrance to the Senate, whose narrow precincts contain a large proportion of the famous men of America. There is scarcely a man to be seen there whose name does not recall some recent claim to fame. They are eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and noted statesmen. Every word uttered in this assembly would add luster to the greatest parliamentary debates in Europe.”

There is no agreement on why the system of electing senators was changed through the enactment of the 17th Amendment. But there is widespread agreement that the change was to the detriment of the states, and that it played a large part in dramatically changing the role of the national government.
Before the 17th amendment the federal government remained stable and small. Following the amendment's adoption it has grown dramatically.
The conventional wisdom is that it was FDR's New Deal that radically increased the size and power of federal government. But scholars make a convincing case that this conventional wisdom is wrong, and that instead, it was the 17th amendment (along with the 16th Amendment, which created federal income tax and was also adopted in 1913) that was the driving force behind federal expansion.
The amendment took a long time to come. It was not until 1820 that a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives to amend the Constitution to provide for direct elections of senators. And not until after the Civil War, in 1870, did calls for altering the system begin in earnest. But 43 years passed before the change was actually made.
Many theories abound about why the 17th Amendment was enacted none of them make sense except special interests.
Researchers have shown the backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had difficulties influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (The framers designed our system precisely to thwart special interests.) Special interests hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they could appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel -- cash. Today all our Federal Senators are bought and paid for, taking what they can for 6 years without oversight by anyone. At least our representatives can be voted out after 2 years.
Repeal of the 17th amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures appointed our Senators, more candidates could be looked at and the best person for the job would be selected. A statesman not a politician would then go to Washington to represent our state instead of there money men, decidedly this would be a good thing.
Returning selection of senators to state legislatures might be a cause that could attract both modern progressive and conservatives. For conservatives, obviously, it would be a return to the system envisioned by the framers. For progressives -- who now must appreciate that direct elections have only enhanced the ability of special interests to influence the process. Returning to the diffusion of power inherent in federalism and bicameralism may seem an attractive alternative, or complement, to campaign finance reform.
The American people are seeing the results of direct democracy, there are no limitations on the power of the federal government and the Senate. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a major step in returning our country to a Republic, and help reduce corruption in Washington DC. With Senators elected by our states and answering to the states for there actions and return control to local governments. We could even fire them at anytime if they forget who the boss is.
Randy G Lancaster
Kelso, Wa