You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat

Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.

You'll have to read through my post.

Explain how neutering the senate improves the situation

If I were looking to solve Americas political issues, i'd be stripped power away from the federal government, not cementing it

Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.

It gives more room for Palpatine's personal decision making ofc @Eccles

That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.

The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.

That's arse backwards - the representatives are elected essentially proportional to the population

If you then give the power to select senators to those representatives, you're stripping away the protections built into the system for less-populace states

No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.

Yes, and there are precisely 2 senators per states

That's the counterbalance taht you're doing away with

This is what the French do. Their senate is elected by citizens who themselves hold elected positions. The idea is that local officials will naturally outnumber central level officials, thus the senator will need to please local governments over central gov to get reelected. France is a very centralized state thou, by design.

There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.

But you're allowing the represenatitives to pick those two senators, Jeremy

How is that an improvement?

How is it not?

Depending on how you implement it, at best it makes no difference

At worst you're more likely to get senators from the majority vote in the state

Rather than the possibility of a mix

Well, tbh I wouldn't make it representatives alone to vote them in (if I were to try to implement this idea). I'd go with the French option: *all* elected officials, including city councilors and mayors and whatnot.

The goal of a senate like that is not to be representative thou

It's to incentivize distribution of power

the house is to be representative

Aye

and senate to prevent that representation to centralize power too ezly

das the idea

It's by no means a foolproof system thou

but at least it's *some* kind of systematized incentive to prevent the excessive centralization of power

The US system of government is failing because they've allowed too much power to be handed to the federal government

Read what I wrote, and you will see. As it stands now, fly-over country has little sway over the legislative futures of their elected Senators, as evinced by the past century, since the 17th was ratified, and I explained in my comment on the matter why that is the case. If you examine what has been occurring among the Senate, you have Senators from fly-over country voting for regulations that directly conflict with the economic interests of their own constituency, favoring the requests of wealthy lobbies from the coastal states you've referenced that're dictating your Senatorial elections in the middle of the country.

Correct.

it wouldn't decentralize an already centralized system thou

I don't think what you're suggesting will fix it

Do the math.

It's more difficult to pump money into 435 district-level, 2-year terms, than it is 100 6-year termed seats.

Imagine the kind of money that'd be required.

money is not the issue

this is dumb