• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • "…of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."

      The purpose of the US Senate was not in order to represent the population of the states but rather to give to the State governments an agency within the national government, so that there might be a link of compatibility between the national system and the state system.

      This posting takes quotations from those living at the time the Constitution was drafted as to why the Congress was set up in this fashion.

      As to why there are two houses (even though under the previous arrangement there was only one) and the reason why there make-up is determined by different criteria:

      "If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation."

      Those who spread misinformation do not want the states to be "independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league" but that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the Constitution in spite of the misinformation which is taught in many schools today.

      The small states such as Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire were afraid that the big slave holding states like Virginia would dominate and so the Senate was designed to protect these small states from being swallowed up by the large states into a monolithic republic:

      "the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the
      small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic

      I have heard it suggested on NPR that the purpose of the Electoral College was to protect the rights of the slave-holding states when in actuality the exact opposite was true. If the presidency had been decided by simple majority, the slave holding states would have far surpassed the votes of the states which had abolitionist viewpoints.

      One of the main reasons for setting up this system was to prevent the large slave holding states from dominating over the small states.

      "No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

      Another reason that was given for why the two houses of Congress would be selected differently and why there composition would be determined by differing criteria is so that both houses would prevent the other house from engaging in a betrayal of the public for the selfish benefit of the elected.

      "It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient."


      "it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government."

      There is a movement to make the two houses of Congress so much alike that there is little or no reason for two separate bodies to exist. If the Senate is no different from the House then it is redundant and valueless.

    • You are a Canadian. Your government does not have the separation of powers of the USA. As an example, your Prime Minister (executive power) is a member of your Legislature.

      The United States government is not designed to operate the way the Canadian government operates. Your views on our Senate are no more relevant than my views on your parliament.

      Previously, you claimed that I am on the Republican side. The Republican party in Nebraska would like to change the way in which Nebraska selects its electors to a winner take all system. I'm opposed to the winner take all approach. It is my view that if the electoral college continues to exist, the electors should be chosen in a split vote system consisting of one elector per congressional district and two electors for the whole state popular vote. This places me at odds with the Republican party but my views are not based on what will benefit either party but rather on how the system is supposed to work.

      If the USA is going to change the system of government, it should change the WHOLE system. Changing the whole system might produce a smoothly operating system but piecemeal changes cause problems. The reason our state governments are handicapped in the national forum is because a piecemeal change broke the system whereby the state governments participated in the national government.

      Its no skin off your back because you live in Canada, but in the US both Democratic state governments and Republican state governments end up spending huge amounts of tax money on litigation in the court systems because they have no other voice in the national forum.

    • The thought of changing the whole system is a non starter because it can’t happen. In theory it could but in practicality it can’t. If you think that the USA doesn’t affect my country and me you clearly don’t have any idea how big an influence the USA has on us. Do you think Canadians know so much about the USA just because it’s interesting to us or your television comes here? The USA influence is massive. In some cases what happens in the USA has a bigger influence on the lives of certain Canadians than many Americans.

    • I did not say that the USA has no impact on Canada.

      We are talking at cross purposes because you are talking about policies, while I am talking about systems and structures.

      The US states are not provinces just as the Canadian provinces are not states. The structure of the US government is quite different from the structure of the Canadian government.

      Metaphorically speaking, you would like to undermine our system for the sake of your favored policies just as Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up the UK parliament literally for the sake of the policies he favored.