Right there, I think we would all be better served if you stopped referring to this as an "election," but as the "chosen" that the Constitution referred to. In place of "chosen," I would accept "appointed" or "confirmed," but not "elected." I admit that Article I Section 3 Clause 2 unfortunately goes on to refer to the "first Election," but afterwards goes back to using the word "chosen." So should we.
So are you proposing to outlaw the ability to even campaign as such for an office ? I don't think that will pass 1st Amendment muster.
You make a big leap with this statement.
I already said "go for it," so no, I'm not prohibiting campaigning. You know that, if you read my posts. I questioned how overtly they were going to use the millions (or billions, as you added), to aid these elections. There are FEC constraints, aren't there? Filing and reporting requirements, yes? Senators can't just start flooding other elections with money without oversight, right? If that oversight connects dots between quid and quo, they will have to answer to that, right?
You wouldn't necessarily have to go that far back. If you're seeking a Senate seat, you would be elected by the body convening who won in that November election. Such members could've been swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate.
I would endorse a local candidate running on a platform of voting for a particular person as federal Senator. That's how we connect local politics with federal politics. The Constitution is a tapestry, with the threads of We the People, the Several States, and the federal government all playing off of one another.
But the cycles don't always harmonize. Senators were appointed for six years, but state legislative offices are of shorter terms. The parts don't always move in unison, and never do when viewed nationally.
If a single candidate were "swept in exclusively pledged to vote for that candidate," that's not a secure place to be as a mandate for influencing day-to-day laws in a state. If a slate of candidates were "swept in," then they would have to organize or assimilate once they got there. Organizing helps the Senator, assimilating does not.
-PJ
I’m gonna jump past all of this and suggest rather than continually argue over this subject, which stands next to no chance of ever occurring (thank heavens), that we consider what we can do at present within the current system to elevate the quality of individuals occupying the Senate at present.
What do I mean ? I mean doing something about the primary process themselves. Perhaps where we draft candidates to run as opposed to necessarily allowing them to openly declare. I’ve floated this for the Presidency, since we’ve seen the quality of candidates degrade to clown show proportions (McCain and Willard). Have pre-conventions of committed Conservatives draft individuals (a vetting process), proceed to a vote and whittle it down to two individuals (and prevent having a scenario by which the most liberal wins by being nominated by plurality). Proceed from there to a CLOSED primary (no chicanery of the opposition party picking our nominees) and on to the general election. It’s a similar method used in Utah (which was able to weed out ex-Sen. Robert Bennett).
I think this would go a long way into improving the quality of our elected officials and holding them personally accountable, and most importantly, is a far more viable option at present that can be implemented.