I’m putting this into GQ because I’m asking primarily whether there is a kind of predominant view in society, rather than SD members’ personal opinion; but possibly a mod might want to shift this into GD nonetheless.
My impression as a foreign observer of American politics is that it is generally considered more prestigious to be a senator than a representative (I’m talking U.S. Congress here, not the state legislature). This might be partially a consequence of the relative powers of the Senate versus the House, but I guess it’s also because there are way more representatives than senators, and because, in order to become a senator, you need to win an election at the state-wide level as opposed to a sub-state district.
Does that also hold true for those very small (population-wise) states which have only one representative? In those states, senators outnumber representatives by two to one, and in order to become a representative you have only one state-wide election you need to compete in and win, whereas there are two such elections, with different opponents, for the Senate seat.
A senator. As you say, being one out of a hundred is always more prestigious than being one out of 435. This extends to even constituent relations, as a senator will have substantially more staff than a congressman – so odds are that constituents have more access to their senators just as a matter of logistics. For example, the two senators from Alaska each have six state offices, Congressman Don Young (who has spent decades more in elective office) has merely two.
Also, it is easier for a senator to have more of a national profile than a representative. If you ask someone generally familiar with American politics who the senators are that represent Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, Vermont, the Dakotas, and Montana, you’ll probably get a fair number of answers for the senators from those states, and mostly blank stares for the congressmen from those states.
Representatives also have to run for office three times as often as Senators. Senate terms help to insulate Senators from the constant campaigning and fundraising of house members. Senators also get bigger staff allowances than Representatives and bigger offices in the Capitol and in their home states. All the traditional indicia of status point to Senators having more prestige.
Rural state guy here and Senator is more prestigious. They have more relative power. A representative has 1/435th of the power to move their House. A Senator has 1/100th. Senator wins.
Back when I lived in Montana, it was common for the at-large representative in the state to challenge one of the senators for their seat, if they were of different parties. A senator would never challenge a representative, though. So clearly the candidates also consider the Senate to be more prestigious.
And differences in powers between the two houses as a whole are almost nil (though still slightly biased towards the Senate). Practically speaking, the only difference is that the Senate has the power to confirm presidential nominees to judgeships and other such positions. Spending bills have to originate in the House, which was supposed to be the more significant power, but in practice it means almost nothing, because it doesn’t matter which house a bill originates in.
And Senatorial Courtesy gives any one senator power to block certain types of presidential appointments related to their state. This gives any senator power that is likely to be felt at the state level.
In Vermont at least the last two former Representatives (Bernie Sanders, James Jeffords) declined re-election to instead run for the Senate when vacancies arose so I’d go with Senator.