In 2000 Nader got 2.7% of the US popular vote for president. I believe this is as high as the Greens have gotten in a Presidential race (our only national election). If a national election is held where everyone understands the math that when they vote for the Green party they will be increasing their # of seats in the 100 person assembly (there needs to be rounding math defined but that’s just details - for now assume a set of parties gets a whole number of % of the vote), then I think that number is going to go up. There are plenty of people who don’t vote Green because they don’t want their vote wasted when they know it is going to be one of two people winning the only national election we have. But in a national proportional election, I think it would be 5% or more (it won’t be 20% I realize) who would vote Green (I would) and there would be 5 Green Senators out of 100. On this forum, you have @Mr_Peabody and others often emphasizing what a big deal it would be to have a single Green candidate (Lisa Savage) elected to Senate - and I agree with him. Imagine what 5 Green Senators would mean.
Electing Senators at large is a joke
I really wish you wouldn’t be insulting like this to an idea that is very much discussed by serious political theorists. Because you don’t seem to know much about Proportional Representation doesn’t give you an excuse to be dismissive. I assume you can find your own articles, but here are a few I discovered which I’ve added to my reading list.
Oh, and in case I wasn’t clear - I am for keeping the House as it is - no proportional grouping for large states which is a band aid for a problem that a Proportional Representation Senate solves much better - your House Representative is accountable to the smallest number of people possible given we have 435 House members and districts can’t span across states. Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware of course all keep their 1 House Seat.