My question would be is that any different than it is today? And wouldn’t the change in information transmission throughout society serve to temper the extremist Senators?
In some ways, it isn’t different. But it’s easier to bribe a small number of legislators than it is the entire electorate of a given state.
The added problem is that several states would cease to be competitive (MA, CA, for 2 examples). Therefore you’d have stooges of an already corrupt and dysfunctional body, ever-increasing leftist extremism. Also badly gerrymandered states would prevent any turnover. California was supposed to improve once it implemented term limits in the early ‘90s. For about 5 minutes, the GOP won control of the Assembly for the first time since the ‘60s. After 1996, they lost it and the body has become a bigger and more extremist joke and turnover or revolving door of different faces but the same ideology, and is now a Third World hellhole insulated by rich leftist enclaves living in a fantasy world isolated from the reality of their politics.
Ultimately, it would be a vicious contest to see which Senator could loot from the treasury more on behalf of his state and cause. Even sensible states like Texas would not be immune to this. Even if you could patch together a bloc of Conservatives from the GOP, you would frequently see the Democrat and RINO groups combining forces to elect leftist RINOs to the Senate.
All in all, very ugly.