3 ms·
> What I am saying is that in the "rural bias" link they refer to the Senate as "overrepresenting rural citizens" and the point I'm making is that the Senate is
by darkarmani 14y ago
> What I am saying is that in the "rural bias" link they refer to the Senate as "overrepresenting rural citizens" and the point I'm making is that the Senate is not about representing citizens, it's about representing states. And it's meant to balance the House, which is about representing citizens.
Why do we need a balance against representing citizens? I think the only reason for this is that money from the Federal gov't often goes to States and not directly to the people.
- lhnn 14y agoThe U.S. national government was designed to be a federal system: The national government handled an explicit set of duties, leaving all other responsibilities to states, which were and are more proper as a government of the people. Since the U.S. is a union of the states, it makes sense to have a legislative body representing states' (and indirectly, peoples') interests. Whether the population differences between Texas and Wyoming are too extreme is a legitimate question, but I still believe in the original intent of the Senate. BTW, the original intent of the Senate was all but destroyed by the 17th amendment, which seriously impacted states' rights by moving the motivating factor of Senators from "How do I get reelected by my state?" to "How do I get reelected by the people?" Finally, (and this is only a statement of fact, not of defense) it is fairly well known that most Founders, especially Federalists, were wary of democracy unchecked. IMO, fair democracy does depend on an educated populace, which makes me sad about today's government.