3 ms·
No it balances the power between the states. The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace. As it was originally
by dantheman 6y ago
No it balances the power between the states. The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace. As it was originally conceived it was a government of enumerated powers.
The house represents the people, the senate the states. In fact, allowing the direct election of senators was one of the worst decisions ever made.
- enchiridion 6y agoThat's an interesting view of electing senators. Is there somewhere I can read more about it? Never thought of it as a very important change.
- asimpletune 6y agoYeah, it's called "the great compromise". During the days when the founders were debating majority rule vs minority rights, they couldn't decide what to do. So they created two houses that both have to coordinate to pass law, but provided a few escape hatches. Random, but this is also why adding Puerto Rico as a state is extremely threatening to the political paradigm today. It would add 2 extra senators, who would most likely be democratic.
- dantheman 6y agoHere's a link: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...
- danans 6y ago> The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace. This is an argument that the Senate - a part of the federal government - should have less power than it does today, much as the House of Lords' power has diminished in the UK.
- ac29 6y agoI'd argue the opposite - currently, the Senate is where legislation goes to die after being passed in the house (which arguably represents the will of the people, at least in theory). The government would be more involved in the day to day affairs of people if the Senate was weakened or eliminated.