5 ms·
That was the explicit purpose of the Senate: each state is equal in the union. Senators weren't even supposed to represent the state's people; they represented
by flyingfences 7y ago
That was the explicit purpose of the Senate: each state is equal in the union. Senators weren't even supposed to represent the state's people; they represented the state itself up until the misguided Seventeenth Amendment. Representation proportional to the population is the purpose of the House - that's why our government has two chambers.
- NoodleIncident 7y agoThis is a flawed argument, because the House isn't proportional to population, either. It's _still_ weighted towards smaller, emptier states.
- GeekyBear 7y agoAll states get at least one House member. Should some states have zero?
- dragonwriter 7y agoNo, but the total number should not have been fixed in 1929 to stop continued increase (and thereby accelerate inequality in representation.)
- LargeWu 7y agoAlso, the two chambers are not equal. The Senate is very clearly the upper chamber.
- flyingfences 7y agoSpatial metaphors are not illustrative. Please give some examples of what you mean.
- NeoBasilisk 7y agoThe Senate alone has the power to confirm every judge in the entire judicial branch. The House has absolutely no say in any of that.
- UncleMeat 7y agoThe Senate is who convicts impeached officials. They approve judges and cabinet appointments.
- wmgries 7y agoThis isn't a spatial metaphor any more than "upperclassmen" and "underclassmen" are for high schools or "left" and "right" are for politics. We call it the "upper" chamber because it's supposed to be the higher status, more "dignified" chamber. Words have histories of course, and probably at one point this was a spatial metaphor - maybe some bicameral legislature literally did have one of their higher status body on a different floor than their lower status body. But the words upper and lower when applied to the legislative branch have evolved since then.
- ben509 7y agoThe House is the chamber with actual power, while the Senate was intended to act as a check on the House and the executive. That's why the 17th amendment made such a mess: they were supposed to represent state interests, and especially having a balanced budget is much more a state interest than a popular interest. In particular, for any bill requiring spending, the Senate can only amend a bill that started in the House. Impeachment must start in the house and is then tried in the Senate. The Senate can't nominate someone to office, they can only confirm a nominee presented by the executive.
- fintechpwmMEdev 7y agoMisguided? Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I understand our federal politics are a complete mess but think that has more to do to equating money with freedom of speech, the great return on campaign donations, the polarization of our media and the lack of solid non-partisan research institutes that our elected leaders can rely upon. Have you ever watched CSPAN? Our leaders routinely become informed about the world around us through the same mass media as we do.
- dwighttk 7y ago>Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I would not mind that
- danek 7y agoThis would give even more power to special interests, as they only need to influence a governor (or a small number of state reps) to get their senate choice, rather than all the voters in the state. I can’t see why that’s better, since at least now senators have to pretend to represent constituents.