[AnthonyMouse]

> We see federal representatives rewarded for brinkmanship. What makes you think state level electorates would act differently?

So what if they do? It's what their constituents voted for. Who's to say brinkmanship is never an optimal strategy?

> A representation system that fails to represent is dysfunctional and should be changed.

So change it by voting for different state legislators.

> Celebrate that the constitution can be changed.

Just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea.

[joshuamorton]

> So what if they do? It's what their constituents voted for. Who's to say brinkmanship is never an optimal strategy?

If you're going to argue that "it's what their constituents voted for" you have to apply that evenly: the consituents got so fed up with this issue that they elected legislators who changed the constitution. No easy feat.

> So change it by voting for different state legislators.

They did, they made it such an issue that their legislators ended up ratifying a constitutional amendment.

> Just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea.

This applies equally in both directions. "It was that way first" isn't a merit, especially when "It was that way first" also applies to slavery.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If you're going to argue that "it's what their constituents voted for" you have to apply that evenly: the consituents got so fed up with this issue that they elected legislators who changed the constitution. No easy feat.

It's two different questions -- does the system do what the constituents want (possibly yes), and what do we as the present day constituents want? The answer to which is not, from what I can gather, the status quo.

> They did, they made it such an issue that their legislators ended up ratifying a constitutional amendment.

Technically they didn't. It was the then-appointed Senate who approved the amendment (and by and large without having been replaced with different people), and they only did so out of fear of rising populist sentiment and what would happen if there was a constitutional convention in that climate. So they were basically doing their job and moderating populist sentiment, but apparently the anti-populist safeguards weren't strong enough to constrain populist sentiment from weakening them even further in that way.

> This applies equally in both directions. "It was that way first" isn't a merit, especially when "It was that way first" also applies to slavery.

Your argument was "celebrate that the constitution can be changed" as if any change is inherently good. But change can make things worse too. Before there was slavery there was not slavery.

Your main criticism also seems to be that the seats were going vacant, so the solution I would offer would be to hold a popular election but only if there has been no appointment within six months. Then the seat can't go vacant long but you're not, in the common case, taking away the seat of the states in the federal government.

[dragonwriter]

> > They did, they made it such an issue that their legislators ended up ratifying a constitutional amendment.

> Technically they didn't.

Yes, technically—and in every other way—they did.

> It was the then-appointed Senate who approved the amendment

No, it wasn’t. The Senate doesn't approve Constitutional Amendments, state legislatures do.

The Houses of Congress, together, can propose Amendments, but they aren't needed for that, either.