3 ms·

It’s a great thing. Legal tradition creates stability and predictability. There aren’t too many people investing in companies in countries where legal precedent

It’s a great thing. Legal tradition creates stability and predictability. There aren’t too many people investing in companies in countries where legal precedent has a short shelf life. You won’t make investments if your investment is threatened by whims or interpretations of the fashions of the day. However laws can be easily changed assuming you have a majority of representatives that agree they should be changed. The genius of the American system is precisely because it can’t move fast and it doesn’t generally change at the whims of the latest political fad. If a bill is written, a president can sign it. If people think the law unconstitutional, they can sue and then the courts review. If a bill is passed and the president vetos it, the veto can be overridden. If the wrong laws are getting passed or ignored, don’t worry, an election is every two years for the House, 6 years for the Senate and 4 years for the President. It’s a genius system because, unlike Communism, it accounts for human nature. It provides for a balance of power. However, I feel that the direct election of senators was a huge mistake as an amendment. The Senate was designed to represent the sovereign states and the House designed to represent the people in those states. By allowing for direct election, the Senate is no different than the House. Basically a House representative with a much bigger district — leaving the state governments with no actual representation. But, that’s another discussion!

salawat 9y ago
So... Could you explain this a bit more? I know the Senate was intended to be a "braking" force on the House, but I have trouble making the mental leap whereby direct election of Senators is a bad thing? As a representative of the State, the Senator is therefore also a representative of the people, no? Historically speaking, I understand that the State level Senate selecting a representative would basically guarantee that you got a sort of "Man of the State" who one would assume would have a high degree of familiarity with the interests of the State as a whole, but is it a foregone conclusion that direct election doesn't achieve the same goal? It seems somewhat worrisome to consolidate that power in a small group. Then again, I can see the argument that acting representatives would probably have the best feel for who could most fully represent the State as a whole.
- hermitdev 9y ago
  Both senators and representatives represent their state, not the country as a whole. Senators are allocated 2 per state; Representatives are allocated to states based upon population. The "braking effect" was put in place to protect low populace rates from being steam rolled by the more populated. So the likes of California and New York can't inherrintly bully states like Alaska or Montana (for example). This creates conflict as more rural areas tend to have different values/needs/desires than states with a high urban population.
  - salawat 9y ago
    So you're saying that allowing direct election of Senators in a State shifts the likelihood of getting a National Representative for a State that is unduly favored toward the State's urban population centers rather than looking out for both the low and high density centers equally? Whereas if the State Senate was still responsible for nominating Senators, equal representation across the State would be achieved? Or am I still being dense?
- jcranmer 9y ago
  The House of Representatives in Congress was always and clearly meant to be a force that directly represents the interests of people directly. It is the popular body in Congress (same sense of "popular" as in "popular vote"). There is more dispute about the role of the Senate: is it to represent the views of the people, weighted on a per-state basis, or is it representative of the states? If a state has different views than the population, then whose interests should the senator be concerned with? The question isn't entirely theoretical: if you have a state that was majority Democratic but gerrymandered to a degree that the Republicans controlled the state government [1], a popular vote would elect a Democrat, but a state selection would appoint a Republican. One would note, if one were cynical, that the advocates for state appointment of senators tends to correlate with a party that is more often in control of state governments without being able to win majority votes in a popular election of a senator. [1] This basically describes Virginia, which has generally consistently tilted Democratic in statewide contests since ~2006 (although a good Republican candidate can still win). Nevertheless, it was a shock in 2017 that Democrats came within a few votes of electing a Democratic majority in its house--to the degree that literally no one thought it was possible, despite the potential for a large Democratic victory in the governor's race, for the Democrats to actually control the legislature in Virginia.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

salawat 9y ago

So... Could you explain this a bit more? I know the Senate was intended to be a "braking" force on the House, but I have trouble making the mental leap whereby direct election of Senators is a bad thing? As a representative of the State, the Senator is therefore also a representative of the people, no? Historically speaking, I understand that the State level Senate selecting a representative would basically guarantee that you got a sort of "Man of the State" who one would assume would have a high degree of familiarity with the interests of the State as a whole, but is it a foregone conclusion that direct election doesn't achieve the same goal? It seems somewhat worrisome to consolidate that power in a small group. Then again, I can see the argument that acting representatives would probably have the best feel for who could most fully represent the State as a whole.

hermitdev 9y ago
Both senators and representatives represent their state, not the country as a whole. Senators are allocated 2 per state; Representatives are allocated to states based upon population. The "braking effect" was put in place to protect low populace rates from being steam rolled by the more populated. So the likes of California and New York can't inherrintly bully states like Alaska or Montana (for example). This creates conflict as more rural areas tend to have different values/needs/desires than states with a high urban population.
- salawat 9y ago
  So you're saying that allowing direct election of Senators in a State shifts the likelihood of getting a National Representative for a State that is unduly favored toward the State's urban population centers rather than looking out for both the low and high density centers equally? Whereas if the State Senate was still responsible for nominating Senators, equal representation across the State would be achieved? Or am I still being dense?
jcranmer 9y ago
The House of Representatives in Congress was always and clearly meant to be a force that directly represents the interests of people directly. It is the popular body in Congress (same sense of "popular" as in "popular vote"). There is more dispute about the role of the Senate: is it to represent the views of the people, weighted on a per-state basis, or is it representative of the states? If a state has different views than the population, then whose interests should the senator be concerned with? The question isn't entirely theoretical: if you have a state that was majority Democratic but gerrymandered to a degree that the Republicans controlled the state government [1], a popular vote would elect a Democrat, but a state selection would appoint a Republican. One would note, if one were cynical, that the advocates for state appointment of senators tends to correlate with a party that is more often in control of state governments without being able to win majority votes in a popular election of a senator. [1] This basically describes Virginia, which has generally consistently tilted Democratic in statewide contests since ~2006 (although a good Republican candidate can still win). Nevertheless, it was a shock in 2017 that Democrats came within a few votes of electing a Democratic majority in its house--to the degree that literally no one thought it was possible, despite the potential for a large Democratic victory in the governor's race, for the Democrats to actually control the legislature in Virginia.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]