"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."
But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:
"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"
Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.
Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.
"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"
Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.
First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.
With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.
I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).
Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.
"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."
That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).