If we were a pure democracy, we would have open borders and socialism... until the economy collapsed and we devolved into a communist regime. Slippery slopes are not mere rhetorical devices.
(no message)
Without the drastic over representation of rural areas in the Senate, socialists would be running the country somehow!
Sure, it's nonsense, but people in cow country believe lots of nonsense.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
There are three things about the Senate that differentiated it from the House:
1) The biggest and most important difference was that its members were intended to be beholden to the States directly, not to the people directly. But, the 17th Amendment eliminated that difference, making Senate members directly accountable to the people like the House. I think the Progressives knew that this would not benefit "the People" but would rather concentrate power at the national level instead of at the State level. Call it the stupid American voter, but they were able to pull it off. It almost makes no sense to have a bicameral national legislature after the 17th Amendment was passed. We should repeal it.
2) The filibuster...but note that this is not a Constitutional limitation on the Senate, as Harry Reid correctly noted. The filibuster remains at the mercy of a simple majority, and can be set aside at any time. Only civility keeps part of it in place, which means it is on borrowed time.
3) Because the Senate's members are selected at the state level, and not the city level like the House, the Senate acts as a balance against urban excesses.
So, with 1 eliminated, 2 at half strength (at best), and 3 at full strength (but the weakest difference), the Senate is half as useful as it was when the Constitution was drafted. That is probably reason enough to keep the Senate de-merged from the House. But, any way you slice it, the Progressives removed a weight bearing beam from the structure of the United States Constitutional government house.
Direction election of senators does not "concentrate power at the national level" somehow. We've been through this. It is a weird thing to believe, as if state legislatures are bastions of local control or something. Direct selection was not some sort of devious progressive plot to centralize power in Washington. Again, your beef with the 17th amendment is just weird...and can only be made by people unaware of how state government works (they are a cesspool of corruption).
House members are not selected at the "city level" somehow. That's just weird.
Correct on the filibuster, though.
The greatest expansion of national power began with the 17th Amendment (and the 16th Amendment which authorized the income tax).
Before that, the Senate was the guardian of state powers (and the Federal government had very limited taxation authority). For the Senate, guarding state powers was its primary mission. The House represented the people at the national level, and the Senate represented the states at the national level. By removing the watchdog of state power, it was just the people and the national government, and the national government began to grow, and the state powers began to diminish.
Perhaps this wasn't a devious plot by progressives. Perhaps the New Deal, or healthcare reform, etc. were not "devious plots" to centralize power at the national level. Perhaps the 17th didn't follow the 16th with the same end goal. Perhaps an activist SCOTUS is also not a bid to increase national authority. But, all have the effect of doing so, and progressives don't like people in cow country doing their own thing. They want everyone in the nation doing the same thing.
You said, "House members are not selected at the "city level" somehow. That's just weird." Were you really confused by that? You don't think House districts are more at the city level than they are at the state level? Are you capable of abstract or relational thought? Or, are you just nitpicking, throwing slop at the wall, and hoping something sticks?