Comment: Is it really the same?

(See in situ)

Is it really the same?

I might expect the State would choose a Senator they believe would represent the State as an independent sovereign and the established expression of its people. Saying the seat goes to the highest bidder, is it bad as long as the chosen Senator does so?

Consider the deliberate distinctions between the two houses of Congress in the unamended Constitution:

Senate: Chosen by State legislature
House: Chosen by popular vote

Senate term: 6 years
House term: 2 years

Senators: Two per State
House: By population of each State

Senate age requirement: 30 years
House age requirement: 25 years

Senate: Ratifies treaties, consents to appointment of judges, sole power to try impeachments.
House: Originates spending bills, sole power of impeachment

The Senate would break the tie in a Presidential election.
Apportionment for the Army may last for only two years (same as the House term).

Do these delineations even make sense if both houses are elected by popular vote? Why shouldn't the Senate be able to originate spending bills? Why shouldn't the House ratify treaties? Why should they have different terms? Or age requirements? Doesn't it change things rather fundamentally for Senators to be chosen by election? Are they really proper Senators at that point?