This is totally wrong for a number of reasons, above all because of its equation of the composition of the state legislature with popular opinion in the state. (Unless by "local state views" you mean the views of the state legislators rather than of the people of the state. In which case, what you are stating would in the first place be a tautology and in the second place is exactly what the Seventeenth Amendment was directed against--Senators putting state legislators' views ahead of the views of the people.)
First of all, it wasn't until the 1960's that the Supreme Court imposed the one-person-one-vote requirement on elections to state legislatures. Until then, rural areas were strongly overrepresented in the state legislatures, big cities were often underrepresented--and when big cities did start to lose population after World War II, they were sometimes
overrepresented but the fast-growing suburbs very underrepresented.
An extreme example: in the California State Senate until 1976 Los Angeles County (1950 population 6,000,000) had the same number of state senators (one) as Alpine County--1960 population 397.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate
(This was justified by analogies to the US Senate. I don't think the analogy stands, because counties are entirely creatures of the state governments, but even if you want to argue that the system was justified, it would be absurd to claim that it represented the opinion of the people of California.)
Second, even after one-person-one-vote, state legislatures are often unrepresentative of public opinion in the state because of political gerrymandering--a practice with which the US Supreme Court has now said it will not interfere.
Third, even with districts of equal population and no intentional partisan gerrymandering, state legislatures can be unrepresentative of the view of the people of the states because of "clustering"--the supporters of one party are disproportionately concentrated in a relatively few districts, where the party wins overwhelmingly, while losing in the majority of districts.
Anyway, in 2018 "Majorities of voters in at least three battleground states - Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina - chose a Democrat to represent them in the state's House of Representatives. Yet in all three states, Republicans maintained majority control over the chamber despite winning only a minority of votes."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/13/least-three-states-republicans-lost-popular-vote-won-house/ I doubt very much that US Senators selected by such legislatures would be more representative of the views of the people of the state in 2018 than senators chosen by popular election....
BTW, as others have noted, popular election would come about--and in the majority of states already had come about--without the Seventeenth Amendment.
"By 1911, a year before the Seventeenth Amendment was proposed, over half the states had adopted the Oregon system or something like it; in many states, the ballot for state legislative elections stated whether the candidate had pledged to support the winner of the popular election for United States Senate. In at least three states, the state constitution required state legislators to elect the Senate candidate who received the most votes in the primary.80 Things had reached the point where the following exchange occurred on the floor of the Senate between Senators Cummins of Iowa, who favored the Seventeenth Amendment, and Senator Heyburn of Idaho, a rock-ribbed opponent:
"Mr. CUMMINS. . . . [T]he Senator from Idaho is
insisting . . . that if the voters of the United States be
permitted to say who shall be their Senators, then this
body will be overrun by a crowd of incompetent and unfit
and rash and socialistic and radical men who have no
proper views of government. I am simply recalling to his
attention the fact that the people of this country, in
despair of amending the Constitution, have accomplished
this reform for themselves.
Mr. HEYBURN. Like a burglar.
Mr. CUMMINS. In an irregular way, I agree, but they
have accomplished it.
Mr. HEYBURN. Like a burglar.
Mr. CUMMINS. And they have accomplished it so
effectively that, whether the Constitution is amended or
not, the people in many or most of the States will choose
their own Senators.
"The Seventeenth Amendment, therefore, did not bring about thedirect election of Senators; it ratified a practice of de facto direct election that had been instituted by other means."
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjo5pqxybrcAhUBbK0KHSy6D3sQFggyMAE&url=http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=public_law_and_legal_theory&usg=AOvVaw3VRSWBS93h8xWzlS5tEeC0&httpsredir=1&article=1097&context=public_law_and_legal_theory