The one thing I still don't understand is how this could ever really lead to the abolition of regional representation.
It seems very clear that some regions will outright refuse to sacrifice their personal regional representation.
There might not be regional demand, as you say, but what's the real harm in letting regions that mutually decide that they'd like to try this do so?
I mean, in order to pass a constitutiona amendment, you need a majority in 4 out of 5 regions. And even if a region objects, as long as 4 others vote in favor, that amendment is binding on all regions.
I would argue that allowing regions to decide themselves how to elect class A senators doesn't harm any region that doesn't want to participate. If the Southeast has no interest in participating, then they're perfectly free to object to any change to their current representation.
Basically, the standard here is even higher than for a constitutional amendment, as a constitutional amendment abolishing regional seats would only require 4 regions, whereas it couldn't happen under this proposal without the consent of every single region.
I personally don't see any threat to regions here.
It might create more competition as well if the Pacific decides to share elections with another region.
