Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, no one thinks the Senate might be more effective with half the number of Senators?
No. It's part of the checks and balances and serves a purpose. A state may want to have a liberal and a conservative both representing them. Nothing wrong with that.
a senator is supposed to REPRESENT the STATE as a whole...no the voters...a senator should be appointed by the state. and answer to the governors, and mayors...let's get back to the constitution, not change it at will
But they don't do that. They represent the party. Like I said, there's really no reason for a Senate as they are just overlap. The constitution is a outdated way of doing democracy compared to the alternatives and really isn't worth studying, as it isn't really the law of the land.
But they don't do that. They represent the party. Like I said, there's really no reason for a Senate as they are just overlap. The constitution is a outdated way of doing democracy compared to the alternatives and really isn't worth studying, as it isn't really the law of the land.
It's a hindrance more than a benefit to the US.
Just because the senate has morphed into one thing recently is no reason to chuck >200 years of precedent.
Senate acts as a buffer between the POTUS and the House. Can you imagine how much worse things would be in this country if the House was the only game in town besides the executive branch?
Senate gets to confirm presidential nominations, treaties and other functions not given to the House. In turn the latter controls the nation's purse strings (among other functions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
The House by virtue of its size has often been highly partisan and hot headed in nature. You find this with most lower houses where bicameral systems are in place. The upper houses with longer terms, lower number of members and so forth is more deliberate and shall we say often sensible.
Dividing up power three ways (four if you split Congress) is one of the smartest things our Founders could have done. It prevents one branch of government from having too much control (in theory).
Even when one party or idea does manage to sweep all sections of government in Washington (think Prohibition) it often takes just one election cycle to change such excesses.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,555 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
yes
a senator is supposed to REPRESENT the STATE as a whole...no the voters...a senator should be appointed by the state. and answer to the governors, and mayors...let's get back to the constitution, not change it at will
No it isnt.
The House represents the state by population, the senate does it by statehood in and of itself. Equal representation and proportional.
The Connecticut compromise isnt all that complicated to understand.
The House represents the state by population, the senate does it by statehood in and of itself. Equal representation and proportional.
The Connecticut compromise isnt all that complicated to understand.
the house (each rep) is supposed to represents its DISTRICT by population...the entire population of that district, not by party
the house represents the PEOPLE
the senate is supposed to represent the STATE AS A WHOLE, doing (voting) whats best for the state, and it represents the governor, the mayors
the senate if it was to listen to the people would represent what the house tells it to, since the house already represents the people, but the senate is supposed to represent the states needs, not the individual peoples
Wow, another fake outrage thread just to hate Obama. So, now Obama is responsible for 2 senators from each state, something that apparently conservatives hate.
But they don't do that. They represent the party. Like I said, there's really no reason for a Senate as they are just overlap. The constitution is a outdated way of doing democracy compared to the alternatives and really isn't worth studying, as it isn't really the law of the land.
It's a hindrance more than a benefit to the US.
Party interests and a state's interests do not always conflict. Not every senator always votes his party's line, either, especially in states that have two strong parties.
Senators tend to take a longer view of things than Representatives. That's because they are going to hold their seats for a long time, and most senators don't want some party vote mistake done early in their term to come back and bite them 5 years later when they're running for re-election.
But, just as it is in the House, there are always going to be senators who will always bend to whatever breeze is coming from their party. Those senators are usually the ones who feel so secure they don't need to pay any attention to their futures. Sometimes that becomes a fatal mistake.
Wow, another fake outrage thread just to hate Obama. So, now Obama is responsible for 2 senators from each state, something that apparently conservatives hate.
while I might have missed it, I have not seen any bash Obama/liberals/conservatives/bush, etc in this
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,555 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
the house (each rep) is supposed to represents its DISTRICT by population...the entire population of that district, not by party
the house represents the PEOPLE
the senate is supposed to represent the STATE AS A WHOLE, doing (voting) whats best for the state, and it represents the governor, the mayors
the senate if it was to listen to the people would represent what the house tells it to, since the house already represents the people, but the senate is supposed to represent the states needs, not the individual peoples
The Senate does not in any form, past or Present, ever represented the governors or mayors. It has always represented the people of the state they are from.
The senate was created so that each state could have equal voice on the national stage regardless of population.
The House is there so that the voices of the people are proportional(population).
Again, this isnt that hard to understand. If you believe your argument to be true, show me where the Connecticut compromise or the Virginia plan before it, ever said that the Senate would represent the governors or Mayors
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
