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.
The Senate was instituted as a balance to the popularly elected House to provide equal representation to the lower population South (that is why they could count 2/3rds of the Slave population to set the number of Representatives) and to provide more influence for the rich establishment in the Federal Government.
The creators of the constitution feared a Democracy which is why they created a Republic dominated by wealthy landowners. The original voting requirements restricted voting at all to White, land owning, church members. In no way did they want field hands, tenant farmers, women, blacks or Chinese to vote. No way in Hell.
Note that the senate no longer functions as intended by the founders. It was supposed to represent the elites,the educated, the gentry, and to guard against the passions of the unwashed, who had the house.
Now we have people like Patty Murray who are no more educated or elite than a typical house member. Not surprising, since both chambers now have the same process.
Things have been kind of turned on their heads. The House is now more determined by the will of the state legislatures as they gerrymander districts and thus rig the elections in the favor of the ruling party. With state wide voters for the senate, they can't do this so the senate is really the people's house. Two senators with terms staggered gives the people a chance to speak and change direction more often.
We could get back to the original model if all states appointed senators and elected representatives at large. Ain't gonna happen.
I don't want to hear about the law. I just want to know if you think there would be a big difference (good or bad) in how things get done if each state only had 1 US Senator instead of 2.
It was different when state legislatures picked the senators.
With a stagger in the state legislatures election of each, be it 2 or or 4 years apart, the state legislature could have changed power.(politically)
Today with special interest buying elections, it has no bearing other than who wants to spend the most.
I think we should go back to the Constitution as written, and there should be two APPOINTED from each state. They are the State's representatives.The people's representatives are the Congressmen. The House is 'The Peoples House'.
Okay, let's ditch all the amendments, including the Bill of Rights.
Okay, let's ditch all the amendments, including the Bill of Rights.
No, just amend the 3/5ths clause and change all mentions of man/men, to people.
The Bill of Rights would be all that is then needed once again.
With the 2nd Amendment protecting all 10 of the civil rights, if they are ever thought to be infringed upon.
Bullies, will still be bullies. There would just be less of them.
I don't want to hear about the law. I just want to know if you think there would be a big difference (good or bad) in how things get done if each state only had 1 US Senator instead of 2.
Because given that it's a confederation of territories and that far more populous states on the coasts shouldn't be able to dictate--always, through shear numbers of its own inhabitants--what happens in my corner of the country, maybe even in their own they, among other things, don't always agree among themselves over a period of time.
Oftentimes, a U.S. Senator from Florida is missing entirely from a congressional vote. If Rubio were the only Senator from there, then that state might go unrepresented entirely for spans of time.
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.