I feel like I have repeatedly stated my case on why the Senate representing state governments is superior. So, it is your turn for justification. How is a Senate elected by the people superior to one selected by state governments? How does expanding the Senate to look like the House maintain the bicameral legislature?

I consider the role of any elected form of government to make decisions in accordance with the wishes and choices of the people, subject to the limitations of however those wishes/choices are established.

If we were to ignore the many costs of direct democracy for everything, the best way to fulfill this role would be ... direct democracy (i.e. ask everybody everything all the time).

However, those costs are real, and I consider representative democracy to be an acceptable substitute most of the time. Nevertheless, stacking layers of representative selection on top of themselves reduces the acceptability of this. Choosing the people who will choose the people who will choose the people who will choose the people who will make decisions is, I think, obviously absurd.

So the question is: is there any way in which two layers of representation might be better than one? I can see none. I do not believe that the votes of a state's already elected representatives to pick the people who will in turn represent the state in the US Congress to be superior in any way than having the same people who vote for the state representatives also vote for the US ones.

In general, I view representatives with a wariness roughly inversely proportional to the number of people they represent. My county commissioner? Very low standing, but if they get something good done, great. My state rep? Not a bad person, but vulnerable to local threats. State senator? slightly better, but still very "local". US rep? Now we're talking. US senator? about as good as it gets, in a state-based system.