By giving each state 2 senators, ALL states have equal representation ... despite their size or population. It's up to the people of each state to choose who they want to represent them (who would best follow their "will").
I understand the purpose. I don't agree with it at all. You give Montana in the Senate the exact same weight as you give California whose population is a bazillion times higher? Seriously? How is that LOGICAL? I will never get it. You do apparently and I sincerely Salute you for that. No sarcasm here. I just don't get it. Thank you for your reply. Why should two people get the same benefit as 50 million? I know I stretched it bigly but the the point is the SAME EXACT THING.
Senators represent the entire state, while those in the House represent districts in the state.
Each state has equal representation in the senate AS A STATE. This ensures that no state has more sway than any other. (eg. Rhode Island is equally as important as Texas)
However, those with more population have more representation in the house. This ensures that all the people have equal representation.
This was the plan the founding fathers had in mind for a fair country (unlike what they had back in England).
That was before they made England fair of course... (In the Founding Fathers' day only a relatively few men, and no women, in England could vote.)
Oh, and the simple way - one MP represents each Parliamentary Constituency, when chosen from the various Parties' own candidates in a single ballot. I was amused to hear a commentator on the radio this evening say the Electoral College - which I think is unique to the USA - puzzles even many Americans!
Rhode Island is not equally important. It's a very small state and I don't know its population but TEXAS is always front and center for one thing or another. When was the last you heard a squeak from Rhode Island. no disrespect intended. I understand the point you make. I simply disagree with it. The Senators have more sway and control over what goes on in the country. That son of an itch mitch has been a plug in the Senate since he got control of it. Are you in support of that? Not me. Thank you for your reply Shuhak. Different strokes for different folks. How much money does the federal gubment get from Rhode Island? how much does it get from California? It's pointless my ranting. Thank you for your reply. I'll Google and get back here. :)
You are seeing a state as population. The Founding fathers saw them as equal parts of the whole - no matter if 5 or 5,000,000 people lived there. Each STATE was represented equally. Now, had they stopped there, then what you're saying would be a valid point. New York is definitely more "important" than Rhode Island or even New Jersey (more people, more comeace, more square milage, etc.). They kept going and made the House to represent the people (population). The more people a state has, the more representatives in the House they get. It's all about representation, not money
As for mcconnell... he's just a d**k. The reason our country is so dysfunctional isn't because of the way the founding fathers set it up, but because of jerks like him who think they're gods. Ted Kennedy was the same way, as have been many others. Because of their self-righteousness and insatiable thirst for power, they don't care about the real reason they were put there in the first place - to represent the people. Instead, they represent themselves and tell the "people" that they know what is best (and many believe them).
The HOUSE is low man/woman on the totem pole. The SENATE is more distinguished (allegedly) carries more weight and has the FINAL SAY. No matter what the HOUSE does (Nancy Pelosi's HOUSE has passed HUNDREDS of bills that went to the SENATE for review and there they sit to this day unattended to by that son of an itch mitch.) If the HOUSE truly represented the will of the people they would not be hostages of the Senate. Waiting on them to review and approve. Now Shuhak I am not telling you anything you don't already know. So why did you avoid discussing the WEIGHT the Senate has over the HOUSE? A blockage...a STOP. SHAMEFUL. That is precisely WHY the Senate should be equally representative of the population. That way no strong arm intimidater like a son of an itch can decide what to IGNORE. Thank you for your reply. Your turn.
This post was edited by RosieG at December 17, 2020 5:38 AM MST
Would it surprise you to know that the founding fathers had this exact same debate? ... and they weren't always civil about it! The founding fathers argued, bickered,and fought as much (if not more) than the people we have in charge today. (Alexander Hamilton was like the mitch mcconnell of his time, while Ben Franklin was more like the Nancy Pelosi.)
It all has to do with equal representation of ALL the people. The fathers believed that Parliament in England ended to favor the wealthy. The fathers wanted a government that allowed everyone to be represented equally. Note that House members are elected every 2 years, while senators serve a 6 year term. This "rhythm" was designed to make sure all the people were being properly represented all the time (again, unlike Parliament), while at the same time keeping the government in "session" at all times. Representatives went back home to "mix with the people" - that way they were "in tune" with the will of the people. (remember the country was a LOT smaller back then). Senators, however, stayed and represented each state (there was even an argument over the number of senators - 1, 2, or 3). This "rhythm" was meant to ensure that no one state had any more or less representation in their government at any time. Also, this way no particular "party" could hold a majority for an extended period of time (as they did in Parliament).
After over 200 years, a lot of corruption has filtered its way into our government. Money rules, and each party constantly tries to push the envelope of what the constitution allows or doesn't allow them to do (just like the republicans have done recently). We are becoming what the founding fathers were trying to get away from.
Once again you fill in CRUCIAL details I had not even considered. Length of time TWO YEARS! RIGHT ON! We are not stuck with them for 4 (like we are with bozo) or 6 or life. So okay. I will buy that. Now as for the founding fathers having this same debate? Well good grief I guess I'm in some pretty fine company aren't I? Also if I haven't mentioned it before I appreciate your patience trying every which way to reach through the thicket that sometimes surrounds my mind. Well the system worked for hundreds of years and now is it shot to he**? The wreckage that bozo trump leaves behind seems total. If it can be salvaged (of which to whit I am very uncertain) how LONG will it take to get back to where we were before the abomination stole our country and tried to murder it? Thank you for your informative and helpful reply Shuhak! :)
Yes. And the House of Representatives provides for proportional representation based on population. The system has worked reasonably well for a long time.
True. Can it be salvaged after the attempt at destroying it forever? Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thee and thine! :) Will it or we ever be the same again? Do we want to?
You clearly obviously did not read my reply. I said "ATTEMPT AT DESTROYING". I did not say it was destroyed. Elsewise otherwise thank you for your reply. I can count too Stu. Just in case you may be under the misapprehension that I can't. FYI and all that jazz.
I never underestimate your brainpower, Rosie. And you are correct that you said "attempt." But I was watching a show last night about reconstruction after the Civil War, and I was surprised to learn that what happened in this year's election is nothing new. In 1876, the election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B Hayes was quite contentious and nasty. Democrats called Hayes "Rutherfraud," and there was a lot of talk about fraud, a rigged election, and another civil war. President Grant even went as far as to fortify Washington against a possible attack. Tilden won the popular vote by about 250,000 and Hayes won the electoral vote, 185-184. It wasn't decided until a compromise was reached early in 1877. Hayes originally got 165 electoral votes with 20 undecided from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. One elector in Oregon was replaced after being declared illegal. The controversy over who should have been awarded those electoral votes went on for years.
That's the thing. Many people don't realize that this has happened before. I wasn't aware of it either until just a few days ago. And I would imagine will happen again at some point in the future. That is if our country still exists as we know it now.
Yes, seriously. It's called equal representation. Whether you agree with it or not, our Constitution has and does work. And will continue to do. That is, as long as our politicians stop trying to bypass, ignore, or change it because they happen to disagree with it.
Shuhak 