Obama brings up an interesting point.

[jolefay]

"The American people voted for change in November." he says while getting miffed about the Stimulus Bill that is not passing. SEEEEEE NOW....You may have voted for Change. BUT- was change to have a President who actually listens to the American People? Or was it really just some guy who is going to fart rainbows and fix everything? The thing is..

Comments

[paris_of_priam]

Actually, the Senate was designed to be LESS responsive to immediate public opinion than was the House of Representatives. The Representatives are elected every two years, but the Senators are elected every SIX years SPECIFICALLY so that Senators won't have to worry as much about public opinion as Congressmen do.

So, I wouldn't say the Senate is an exact "voice of the people" and it's not intended to be.

Actually, I remember writing a term paper for a political science class I was in 20 years ago, arguing that the original idea of representative democracy (electing representatives) was only necessary because it was too impractical to ask EVERYBODY in the country to vote on bills. So, electing representatives instead was a necessity, but not an ideal. But now that we have televised debates, and voting over the internet, a representative democracy isn't necessary anymore, and that we should scrap the Congress and Senate, and let the American people vote on bills directly over the internet.

But that was when I was young and foolishly idealistic. I've completely changed my mind about it now! Now I realize that making good policy decisions takes a lot of work and research, and it's a full time job. It would be horrible if people were just tuning in to Hannity and Colmes to watch a five minute, sophmoric name calling session, and then logging on to www.congress.gov to vote for a bill based on what they'd seen on TV. GEEEEeeeesh!

Why we can't have nice things

[jolefay]

Someone will hack it..And so no internet voting. "Is this Bill Hot or Not?" LOL>

[arcstone]

You were correct in terms of the Senate until the Progressives enacted the 17th Amendment of the Constitution during the Civil War era, thereby killing States Rights and making the Senate no more than another version of the House.

YOU KNOW

[jolefay]

I completely forgot about that. I got in trouble for starting that debate in class. I think I said "So the Senate is Pointless." My teacher was trying to explain why it was not-why a lot of people were pissed off. Then my X raised his hand which is why I remember this. Of course I can't remember what he said. BUT I do remember starting debates just to irritate him. Humm maybe I should have discussed that in therapy way back when LOL.

Re: YOU KNOW

[arcstone]

While I don't think the Senate is pointless, I think that the 17th Amendment really robbed it of its intention - to represent the States equally.

With our being able to elect Senators, it is no different a governing body than the House. Whereas the appointment of Senators was the clearest function of State Governments and illustrated the clear line that Federalism was supposed to represent.

Nowadays, either ditch the Senate or bring it back to its roots, I could care less which.

[paris_of_priam]

(Damned Yankees.) Apparently the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, not during the Civil War, or even the Reconstruction Era.

But anyway, my comment was about how longer term lengths, and staggered election periods were designed to make the Senators less responsive (in the short term) to the people who elected them, not about how they're elected. Although, you're right to point out that having Senators appointed by state legislatures, rather than being elected directly is another way of doing that.

[arcstone]

Sorry, that was the case of my brain going faster than my typing and missing some key points. I had meant to say that the roots of the Amendment came from Civil War era issues. And eventually led to the passing of the Amendment during the big Progressivist movement (i.e. The Populist Party having it as a party platform, the constant movements to have it adopted from 1893-1902, etc.) of late 19th/early 20th Century.