Repeal the 17th
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ...I'm putting my ignorance on display here, but I must admit that the first time I heard about the repeal of the 17thAmendment was from Alan Keyes during his recent run for the senate from my home state, Illinois.
What reminded me of this was a comment left by Intermodal on AlCzverik's site.
The basic argument for the repeal of the 17th is that it is too radical a departure from the role of the Senate as envisioned by the founders. The House of Representatives and the Senate were designed to be two very different parts of the federal legislature: the House of Representatives was meant to be the People's representatives to the federal government, the Senate was intended to be State government's representatives to the federal government.
The 17th Amendment dramatically changes that setup. The Senate has essentially become an über-House, with slightly quirkier rules. The argument can certainly, and has, been made that this has negatively affected government in America, leading to bigger government and an erosion of state's rights.
Right-Winger Zell Miller argues that direct election of senators gives unwarranted power to DC special interests. Also, libertarian Harry Browne is concerned that direct election of senators weakens states' positions in dealing with the federal government.
So, after admittedly brief contemplation, I'm throwing my (meaningless) support behind this idea.
Here's another radical idea worth consideration: Triple the size of the House.