I dont want my represetnatives who cant even agree on a budget for my state to decide who gets to represent us in washington

No, you have one vote, and you can only vote for one person.

Because as you said, those locally elected representatives dont care whats best for other areas they only care about their own

@4AM_critter 🐉 okay, all 20 get some percent of the vote. what now? take the top 7?

Yes, but they have to pick one person for six years.

Yes the top seven get he seats.

what happens if less than 7 get votes.

Which is why I dont want them to pick a person, because they dont care about the state as a whole, what they care about is their own re-election

its only like 4 people @4AM_critter 🐉

Then that senator is no longer beholden to the people, he becomes beholden to the state representatives which elected him

They don't elect him.

Appointed whaterver

So we should vote on supreme court judges?

Thats what the Senate is for

....

They're supposed to think about how people in the state will be affected by that judge

No.

They're supposed to think about how the state will be effected.

No?

Why would they think about how their state government will be affected?

pretty sure they don't think about either

Because that's what all of their job functions revolve around.

they think about will this person make a good addition, and you vote for them in hopes that how they think about that judge will be reflected by you

In the system which you describe yes

In the current system no

In the current system yes.

Why do their jobs in the federal government revolve around state government?

`Bills may be introduced in either chamber of Congress. However, the Constitution's Origination Clause provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".[53] As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds.[54][55][56] Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, when the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures.[57]

Although the Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respect of spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:

The Senate's right to amend general appropriation bills has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.[58]

The approval of both houses is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by sending amendments back and forth or by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.`

Their role is to make sure that the reps don't fuck shit up too much.

In our system, any spill over votes a candidate gets goes to the hext candidate on the list. Each party put up at least as many candidates as there are seats up for election. That means that votes excessive votes and party votes get distributed to the next person on the list.
A classic example is one very popular candidate gets elected and takes 3-4 extra seats for his party.
Another classic example is a candidate at the bottom on the list blows past all the others and win a seat.

Here we don’t have primaries. The election and lust placement of candidates is an internal party matter

so really only 1 person for that party gets elected, and the rest are just elected by the party if they get extra?

Yes, but all candidates most be announced before the elction.

like your preferred party has 1 guy you like. so you vote for him. And everyone else mostly voted for him. You voting for him can end up getting like 3 more people that no one voted for into office?

Hence it matter what order your name is on the ballot.

Yes in theory.

Wouldn't everyone voting for all 7 seats be better? Assuming only 1 person per seat.

A classic example would be the party PVV in the Netherlands, most people vote for that party for Gert Wilders, but the party have other representatives elected also.

Correct me if i am wrong. @Dr.Wol

i was summoned

Then you get a two party system again. @Grenade123