3 ms·

In my opinion, thinking of each state as a small nation unto itself is the best way to see the value of the senate in its current form. I find this thought pat

In my opinion, thinking of each state as a small nation unto itself is the best way to see the value of the senate in its current form. I find this thought pattern to be helpful because the state has all the government powers not given to the federal government, and not found to be contrary to the constitution. The tenth amendment guarantees this - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Each state, as a small nation, has its own interests that need preserving outside those of the United States at large, and it makes sense that the senate acts as a check on the interests of large, populous states over smaller ones when it comes to these. Having lived in several states, I've found that differences in values and culture inform general opinion of the federal government. In my opinion, this article sounds like it was written by someone who views the United States federal government as one that should have a large role in the every day lives of citizens, and my feedback to them is that they should consider whether or not they would like it if a growing state with different values than their own suddenly had disproportionate representation federally.

SllX 8y ago
I agree with you, because this is more or less what the US is, and in some ways, was intended to be, and in other ways, not intended to be. If you split the government along Foreign and Domestic policy, the Federal government represents more foreign policy matters with the Senate serving as the outlet for the States to have a modicum of say, and the States generally handle more local and domestic policy matters, except where Congress has reserved power. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and while what we have is a compromise, there was clearly vision behind the drafting of the constitution, more vision than 99% of armchair historians can muster. In order to scale democracy beyond the level of a city-State and have it survive, they instituted some Anti-Democratic institutions. The Senate is one of these institutions. Most of those who would like to revise the Constituon lose sight of the fact that democracy does not scale well without some judicious compromises. The very nature of the Constitution and Federalism is counter to democracy. The Senate is counter to democracy. The Supreme Court is counter to democracy. The Presidency is counter to democracy. If you asked me, I would say we could do better, but we’re not going to do better by cutting down the pillars of society and seeing what we can build from the rubble. The States are as integral to the United States as the Federal Government is to the States.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  I get the states are an integral part of the US but I'm unclear on why the Senate needs equal representation for all states except for the fact that the founders made it that way.
  - SllX 8y ago
    Because if one State could dominate Congress entirely the policies of the country would be disproportionately shaped around that one State. The State is an entity that matters, according to the Constitution, because the Union could not have existed without the States, therefore the Senate is the chamber of Congress which represents the interests of the States rather than the people which is the function of the House of Representatives. The mechanism for selecting Senators may have changed, but not the function of the Senate. Or to put it this way, why is it that the United Nations is designed to give one country one vote in the General Assembly and not proportionate representation according to each nation’s population? It is the same principle in play. From the lenses of the Founding Fathers, the Union was an agreement between States and People and so Congress represents States and People. The United Nations is an agreement between Nation-States and so it represents Nation-States, no single Nation’s and no single State’s interests should override the interests of all the other Nations or all the other States. You can disagree with that principle, certainly, but I think it is necessary for the Union to have both chambers of Congress. There is no function for a Senate that is proportionate to each State’s population to serve, and you would be better served by abolishing the Senate altogether along with the representation of the States’ interests in Congress and maintaining the House of Representatives as the sole remaining chamber of Congress.

SllX 8y ago

I agree with you, because this is more or less what the US is, and in some ways, was intended to be, and in other ways, not intended to be. If you split the government along Foreign and Domestic policy, the Federal government represents more foreign policy matters with the Senate serving as the outlet for the States to have a modicum of say, and the States generally handle more local and domestic policy matters, except where Congress has reserved power. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and while what we have is a compromise, there was clearly vision behind the drafting of the constitution, more vision than 99% of armchair historians can muster. In order to scale democracy beyond the level of a city-State and have it survive, they instituted some Anti-Democratic institutions. The Senate is one of these institutions. Most of those who would like to revise the Constituon lose sight of the fact that democracy does not scale well without some judicious compromises. The very nature of the Constitution and Federalism is counter to democracy. The Senate is counter to democracy. The Supreme Court is counter to democracy. The Presidency is counter to democracy. If you asked me, I would say we could do better, but we’re not going to do better by cutting down the pillars of society and seeing what we can build from the rubble. The States are as integral to the United States as the Federal Government is to the States.

tdb7893 8y ago
I get the states are an integral part of the US but I'm unclear on why the Senate needs equal representation for all states except for the fact that the founders made it that way.
- SllX 8y ago
  Because if one State could dominate Congress entirely the policies of the country would be disproportionately shaped around that one State. The State is an entity that matters, according to the Constitution, because the Union could not have existed without the States, therefore the Senate is the chamber of Congress which represents the interests of the States rather than the people which is the function of the House of Representatives. The mechanism for selecting Senators may have changed, but not the function of the Senate. Or to put it this way, why is it that the United Nations is designed to give one country one vote in the General Assembly and not proportionate representation according to each nation’s population? It is the same principle in play. From the lenses of the Founding Fathers, the Union was an agreement between States and People and so Congress represents States and People. The United Nations is an agreement between Nation-States and so it represents Nation-States, no single Nation’s and no single State’s interests should override the interests of all the other Nations or all the other States. You can disagree with that principle, certainly, but I think it is necessary for the Union to have both chambers of Congress. There is no function for a Senate that is proportionate to each State’s population to serve, and you would be better served by abolishing the Senate altogether along with the representation of the States’ interests in Congress and maintaining the House of Representatives as the sole remaining chamber of Congress.