From your link....
Originally, under
Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the
Constitution, each
state legislatureelected its state's senators for a six-year term.
[3] Each state, regardless of size, is entitled to two senators as part of the
Connecticut Compromise between the small and large states.
[4] This contrasted with the
House of Representatives, a body elected by popular vote, and was described as an uncontroversial decision; at the time,
James Wilson was the sole advocate of popularly electing the Senate, but his proposal was defeated 10–1.
[5] There were many advantages to the original method of electing senators. Prior to the Constitution, a federal body was one where states effectively formed nothing more than permanent treaties, with citizens retaining their loyalty to their original state. However, under the new Constitution, the federal government was granted substantially more power than before. Having the state legislatures elect the senators reassured
anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the federal government's swallowing up states and their powers,
[6] and providing a
check on the power of the federal government.
[7]
Additionally, the longer terms and avoidance of popular election turned the Senate into a body that could counter the populism of the House. While the representatives operated in a two-year
direct election cycle, making them frequently accountable to their constituents, the senators could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress".
[8] State legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government.
[9] The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests".
[10] Members of the
Constitutional Convention considered the Senate to be parallel to the British
House of Lords as an "upper house", containing the "better men" of society, but improved upon as they would be conscientiously chosen by the upper houses of state republican legislatures for fixed terms, and not merely inherited for life as in the British system, subject to a monarch's arbitrary expansion. It was hoped they would provide abler deliberation and greater stability than the House of Representatives due to the senators' status.
[11]
