It was just this sort of selfish attitude (sorry, I can't put it any other way) that the people who promoted the 17th Amendment were counting on. Hill and Chuck were elected by a majority vote of NY state. Most people in NY live in NYC. People in NYC have decidedly different interests than most of the rest of NYrs. They also don't know or don't understand very well the issues of upstate NYrs. But they have the majority so they elect the Sen.'s. Mob rule.
If anyone in NY is represented by them it's NYC and surrounding burbs. Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?
What you are arguing for is smaller states, so that minorities in parts of existing states can send their own senators to DC. That's fine with me. Go draw the new map.
"Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?"
Fairer for who? Looks like someone is trying to 'rig the system' to get a desired result. Why should a citizen have less of a vote based on where they live? Why not base it on; income, eye color, height (tall people get 1/2 vote)...?