5 ms·

The way these things are taught in history class is pretty weird, and goes a long way toward explaining this. The Connecticut Compromise is a great example. Y

The way these things are taught in history class is pretty weird, and goes a long way toward explaining this. The Connecticut Compromise is a great example. You're taught that the large states wanted representation in proportion to population, and the small states wanted states to be represented identically (regardless of population), for obvious reasons. So, they decided to split the difference, making one house proportional and the other population-independent. While they did this because it was the only thing they could get agreement on, it was also the greatest civic invention since democracy itself... by coincidence, I guess? Yeah, it's pretty weird.

pdonis 6y ago
> it was also the greatest civic invention since democracy itself... I wasn't taught that in history class. I was just taught the facts you described: that the compromise was made because it was the only way to get agreement at the convention on how the national legislature should be organized.
- amalcon 6y ago
  Well, my memory is decades out of date and from a low-population state. Still, I remember spending a lot of time on how smart this was and how well it's worked. "Greatest civic invention since democracy itself" was a bit of hyperbole, but there was definitely a lot of emphasis on how good the compromise was.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    I expect it varies by when and where you went to school.
falcor84 6y ago
>the greatest civic invention since democracy itself According to what parameter? Is there any objective manner in which bicameral parliaments fare better than unicameral ones?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I'd say stability. The various checks and balances make it difficult for any radical change from getting through, even if the majority wants it.
- ip26 6y ago
  Staying power? Obtaining & maintaining consent of the governed being one of the most critical features of a representative government.
bigger_cheese 6y ago
I am fairly ignorant about US political system. Doesn't the idea of having two separate houses come from British Westminster system? The Westminster system is supposedly the basis for my country (Australia's) parliament but I believe we also have taken influences from other systems and have incorporated some things that aren't common anywhere else (like compulsory voting) our constitution comes from 1901. I could be wrong, but I think the main difference Between US system and ours is how the leader is appointed. The US directly votes for president, where as here the winning party (Based on number of Lower House seats won) appoints the leader. Our Prime Minister is much more beholden to the party he belongs to where in US presidents gets to Veto stuff - I think.
- hajile 6y ago
  It's my understanding that in that type of system, one of the two houses passes laws while the other represents the general population. In the US, laws are initiated in the House. If they pass the vote, they go to the Senate which must also vote to pass them. Finally, the President signs them into action or vetoes (which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority). The Shay's Rebellion had a huge influence on the government design. The majority (all the farmers) agreed that they could vote to force the minority (the banks) to forgive their debts. Several of the earlier Federalist papers go over the many, many democracies that failed (usually for this very reason). Voters actually elect people as state electors. Those electors come together to cast the actual vote for the president (with backups in case of election issues as this election is likely to require). The minimum number of electors gives slightly disproportionate power to less-populated states. Quite literally, the Constitution gives louder voices to minority areas. We see this same idea in the Senate. States are equal members of the union no matter if they are large or small and the Senate gives them this power. Even the largest states (population-wise) can't just force through legislation to their exclusive benefit.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Strictly, only bills that raise revenue have to originate in the House. Any other bill can start in either place.

pdonis 6y ago

> it was also the greatest civic invention since democracy itself... I wasn't taught that in history class. I was just taught the facts you described: that the compromise was made because it was the only way to get agreement at the convention on how the national legislature should be organized.

amalcon 6y ago
Well, my memory is decades out of date and from a low-population state. Still, I remember spending a lot of time on how smart this was and how well it's worked. "Greatest civic invention since democracy itself" was a bit of hyperbole, but there was definitely a lot of emphasis on how good the compromise was.
- pdonis 6y ago
  I expect it varies by when and where you went to school.

falcor84 6y ago

>the greatest civic invention since democracy itself According to what parameter? Is there any objective manner in which bicameral parliaments fare better than unicameral ones?

WalterBright 6y ago
I'd say stability. The various checks and balances make it difficult for any radical change from getting through, even if the majority wants it.
ip26 6y ago
Staying power? Obtaining & maintaining consent of the governed being one of the most critical features of a representative government.

bigger_cheese 6y ago

I am fairly ignorant about US political system. Doesn't the idea of having two separate houses come from British Westminster system? The Westminster system is supposedly the basis for my country (Australia's) parliament but I believe we also have taken influences from other systems and have incorporated some things that aren't common anywhere else (like compulsory voting) our constitution comes from 1901. I could be wrong, but I think the main difference Between US system and ours is how the leader is appointed. The US directly votes for president, where as here the winning party (Based on number of Lower House seats won) appoints the leader. Our Prime Minister is much more beholden to the party he belongs to where in US presidents gets to Veto stuff - I think.

hajile 6y ago
It's my understanding that in that type of system, one of the two houses passes laws while the other represents the general population. In the US, laws are initiated in the House. If they pass the vote, they go to the Senate which must also vote to pass them. Finally, the President signs them into action or vetoes (which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority). The Shay's Rebellion had a huge influence on the government design. The majority (all the farmers) agreed that they could vote to force the minority (the banks) to forgive their debts. Several of the earlier Federalist papers go over the many, many democracies that failed (usually for this very reason). Voters actually elect people as state electors. Those electors come together to cast the actual vote for the president (with backups in case of election issues as this election is likely to require). The minimum number of electors gives slightly disproportionate power to less-populated states. Quite literally, the Constitution gives louder voices to minority areas. We see this same idea in the Senate. States are equal members of the union no matter if they are large or small and the Senate gives them this power. Even the largest states (population-wise) can't just force through legislation to their exclusive benefit.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Strictly, only bills that raise revenue have to originate in the House. Any other bill can start in either place.