100 Years of the 17th Amendment--is ENOUGH!--Part 2

The Progressive Era gave us, in 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which calls for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people of each state.  No big deal right?  More democracy is a good thing, right?  But this single piece of legislature has altered the political landscape so much that after 100 years the Founders wouldn't recognize this as the system they set up, and Obamacare has put the nails in the coffin of the Constitution.
At the Constitutional Convention there was lots of debate regarding how the bodies of Congress were going to be chosen.  The Virginia Plan, created by James Madison, called for a large "first" House directly elected by the people, and a smaller "second" house (Senate) elected by the first.  The governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph stated that the second house "ought to be much smaller than that of the first; so small as to be exempt from the passionate proceedings to which numerous assemblies are liable...(secure from) the turbulence and follies of democracy."  These men knew that if democracy (the House) were to have no balanced counterpart in the Senate, the various states would gradually lose power to an encroaching national entity.  In truth, we no longer have a "federal government" in which the states have significant power, but a national one, and that was exactly what the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention feared.
But why does that matter today?  Surely it's OK if each state has the same laws--better even, since it makes it easier to move around and do business in the USA?  What has happened since 1913 is that the Senators have become, not agents and representatives of their states, but representatives of their political party.  So any special interest need only woo (read $$$) one party, and they have the vote of not only all the Congressmen of that party but all the Senators.  THIS was how we got Obamacare and many many other destructive programs.  A Senate elected by their own state legislatures, as the original Constitution had set forth, would be much harder to sway to a position that would centralize power in Washington.
Back to the point about democracy: Bryan Caplan, Paul's Econ professor at GMU, wrote a book called The Myth of the Rational Voter (video of him discussing it here), which dismantles the idea that democracies choose good policies.  In fact, democracies always tend toward socialism--this has been known for a long time.  And socialism comes armed with a flood of busybodies telling you how to live your life.  And these are not just suggestions, being backed up by the police power of the State.  Thus, Statists love democracy.
The hand-wringing surrounding the potential repeal of the 17th Amendment goes like this: "The Tea Party wants to strip from voters the power to elect their own Senators!"  Actually, each person has a much greater chance of influencing an election in their own district as they choose state legislators.  If you elect legislators that are in line with your own views of the proper role of government, then they can represent you as the debates surrounding the choice of Senators are on the table.  And those Senators would really listen to their state constituency, instead of just voting along party lines.
Why does this matter?  If we don't repeal Obamacare quickly the pain of extraction will be that much greater.  More on that in Part 3--the only part I have any real specialized knowledge in because of my 20 years as a Critical Care nurse--why socialized medicine is a disaster in every country it is tried in.