Sounds like a good idea. Take the self interest of politicians out of it.

Does anyone seriously think Gillibrand would have had a snowball's chance in hell if she had run in a New York democratic primary or special election without this appointment?

I would support this even if I hadn't just witnessed two governors completely bollox the process up, one through old-fashioned venality, the other through old-fashioned incompetence.

Not a bad baby step, but while you are at it, how about an amendment to elect the president by popular vote amd do away with the electoral college?

I will absolutely support a Constitutional Amendment banning appointments to the Senate by state Governor's.

This is a good idea.    But getting it passed and more importantly RATIFIED is gonna be quite a task in a divided nation filled with bitter politics between Dems and GOP.

Securing 50% plus 1 is hard given the current atmosphere in recent yrs......but convincing 66% and eventually 75% of the state legislatures is quite a task.

Also the ONLY states that would ever pass a Constitutional Amendement eliminating the Electoral College are the large populous states such as Cali, NY, Florida, Texas, and Illinois.   States such as Rhode Island, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, and other small states will never agree.    

Also in the day and age of a powerful President....it is interesting knowing that our forefathers created the US Constitution amendment process ignoring a key politcal figure.  

According to the Amendment process......the opinion of the most powerful man in the world(US President) is irrelevant.   The President has zero influence or power regarding amendments.   Kinda interesting.

I view U.S. Senate appointments as being with a governor's purview.

Makes sense to me in terms of having uninterrupted representation in the Upper Chamber, where the total number (100) is much less than in the House (435).

With the various Continuity of Congress amendments floating around.  They deal with the same subject - how to replace a member when their seat becomes vacant.  One section could deal with individual vacancies, and another could deal with mass vacancies.

Agree 100%.

I mentioned the undemocratic nature of this outdated practice and was told the problem was the expense of having elections. I think our democratic process is worth investing in what it takes to have these elections.

I think we should revoke the previous amendment and go back to gubernatorial appointments for ALL Senate seats.  The idea that "the people" aren't represented is just ludicrous.  Senators aren't supposed to represent the people, they represent states.  Thats how this was supposed to work.  Direct election of Senators has led to a vast increase in money in politics, and a focus on Washington instead of local state government.  If we want to change all that, let's abolish the Senate all together and go to a Parliamentary type of government.

This seems like one of those no brainer amendments that will pass into law easily... yet for some wierd reason, the senate and house won't approve it.... Don't ask me why... I hope I'm wrong of course.