I read that in the olden days, in the US, the senate represented the upper class. What do they do now?
How about the senate in Canada? Did they ever represent anyone? Do they anymore?
I would appreciate answers to my questions.
Each state in the US has two senators, regardless of that state’s size. Each state also has a certain number of representatives, but that number varies by size.
This was a compromise designed to solve the “big state/little state” argument going on at the time of the framing of the Constitution. States with a smaller population size were worried that if representatives were assigned by population, they would always be outvoted by bigger states. Bigger states, on the other hand, felt that in a straight “two representative per state” system, the people in the smaller states would have more powerful votes, because each representative from those states would be representing fewer people. (Does that make sense?)
Therefore, we have the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senators are chosen two to a state regardless of population size, and representatives are chosen based on population.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, according to the original “design,” representatives would be elected by the people while senators would be chosen by state legislators.
According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years…” (emphasis added)
Yep, originally Senators were not elected! Why? I believe it was because the Framers were fearful of “too much democracy,” and wanted some lawmakers to not be elected by the masses. The ‘ol “mob rules” theory.
Of course, this changed with the Amendment XVII:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”
The Senate is the higher chamber of Congress. It never represented the upper class; that sounds like England’s House of Lords. The Senate is the more august, more deliberative body of Congress. It is smaller, the terms are longer, and under the original Constitution, senators were selected by state governments instead of being elected (they are elected directly now). This was to ensure that important congressional functions, like confirmation of presidential appointees, were not affected by factional politics and popular passions.
The Senate’s duties have not changed; senators vote on legislation (which must also pass the House of Representatives), confirm presidential appointees (cabinet members, federal judges, ambassadors, etc.), and has other special duties which sledom come into play (as during impeachment).
Of course, the wealthy and educated are heavily represented in American government; that is because they (a) vote more; (b) wage more successful campaigns; © contribute more to politicians; and (d) have more friends who are politicians.
In the early days, the House was actually considered the more prestigious half of Congress. There were several examples of Senators who quit to run for the House, unlike today’s world in which House members go up to the Senate as a career move. And after John Quincy Adams lost the Presidency he went into the House, not the Senate.
From the founding of the Republic there was always tension between the idea of a Union of sovereign states and a country where the government is in the hands of the people directly. (This is a tension we still feel today, although the balance we strike is decidedly more in the hands of the people than it was 200 years ago.) Those who favored the states feared that the populace could (at least in the short term) be swayed into foolish decisions by demagogues, and that a national populace wouldn’t always understand local concerns (read: slavery). Small states shared this view, because they didn’t want their power erased. Those that favored the people felt that the states were too diverse to allow all power to reside in their hands – this is what scuttled the government under the U.S.'s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Larger states favored this view because their larger populations would give them more power. The compromise reached between these two groups in the Constitution was to create a bicameral legislature. One Chamber gave equal representation to each state and members where chosen by that state’s established politicians. The other gave essentially equal representation to every person in the nation, regardless of state. Although the state establishment lost its power over Senators after the 17th Amendment, the fact that each state has equal representation in one Chamber makes it very difficult for small states to be discriminated against.
–Cliffy
All important distinctions, but perhaps you’re overlooking an important one: the House of Representatives can, in theory, be completely replaced at an election every two years. The Senate is divided into three classes, so only one-third can be bounced out of office at any one time (in theory).
This provides “institutional memory,” which is why the Senate handles long-term matters, like international treaties, while the House has first crack at the budget.
Canada’s senate is mostly made up of retired politicians. They are unelected – they are appointed by whatever party is in power, and stay there until they retire or pass away.
The original idea was to give bills “sober second thought.” Generally they look over a bill and make recommendations. I’ve never heard of a bill dying in the Senate. I don’t know if they have the power to reject a bill, now, but if so, I’ve never seen them use it. As an unelected body, they just don’t the legitimacy to decide what should and shouldn’t be Canadian law.
So they basically play a role of advisor to the elected body, the House of Commons.
In recent years, this organization has come under attack. It is very expensive, and many Canadians feel Senators don’t take the job seriously. There’s been talk of turning it into an elected body-- perhaps voted on by region, or awarded to parties by popular share of the vote. So far, though, nothing’s changed.
According to whom? The Senate represents the same people as the House. In the early days of the Senate, the members might have been from a better economic class than the House only because the members were a little bit older (minimum of 25 for the House, 30 for the Senate).
As noted earlier, in the 19th Century members of Congress left the Senate to run for the House. Henry Clay started off in the Senate (filling an unexpired term and he wasn’t even 30 at the time) and later returned to the House. And he was chosen Speaker in his first term!
Clay often spoke of how he preferred the House’s daily activities to the more leisurely pace of the Senate. He felt that the House did the people’s work and accomplished things while the Senate just talked a lot.
Clay switched back and forth between the two Houses.
He went Senate, Kentuck House of Representatives, Senate, House, Secretary of State, Senate, brief retirement, Senate, died.
Since we’re already talking about the Senate, I have some more questions.
Can Senators propose legislation?
Here in New York, only one senator is up for election in a election year (if any.) For example, Hillary Clinton was up for election, but Charles Schumer was already in office and not up for election. How did the election years of senators get out of sync. Shouldn’t both senators (from a given state) be up for election at the same time (since both offices were created at the same time?)
When the Senate was first assembled, it was divided into three classes. The first group only got to serve two years, the second four years, and the third for the full six years. As each new state entered the Union, its senators were placed into one of those three classes so as to keep them all relatively even.
(Obviously one of the classes has 34 senators and the other two 33). Senators from the same state couldn’t be put it into the same class.
States never elect two senators in the same year unless one of them is in a special election.
The initial classification system is actually in the Constitution.
From the original Constitution:
Subsequent amendments have altered the selection process, but the three “tiers” of senators mentioned by ThreeGrumpy has continued into the present. It was a deliberate action to prevent a 100% turnover in the senate in any given election.
Back in 1992, California had an election for both its Senate seats. One seat was open because Alan Cranston was retiring and the other was a special election to finish out the term of Pete Wilson, who had become governor. Wilson had appointed John Seymour to serve until the next regular election came around.
The Democrats won both seats with Dianne Feinstein winning the two-year term and Barbara Boxer winning the six-year term. The Democrats knew that Feinstein was better at raising money and would be better prepared to gear up for another election in 1994, which she did. And she barely edged out Michael Huffington.
In 1996 now-Sen. Gordon Smith set a record when he became the first man to run for a Senate twice in the same year. Early in the year there was a special election to fill the seat of Sen. Bob Packwood (remember him?). He had to retire in 1995, and rather than leave an appointee in for over a year Gov. John Kitzhaber called a special election in January instead of the customary November to coincide with regular elections. Smith ran against now-Sen. Ron Wyden and lost, mostly due to Wyden’s ability to paint him as an extremist in this moderate-to-liberal state. He ran against millionaire Tom Bruggere in November and won, partially by moderating his stance on abortion. Since then he and Wyden have become friends.
Now I’m going to try and figure out what other current Senators have run against each other in some capacity (there could be some guys out there who opposed each other on the school board) and I’ll get back to you guys.
Nit on this… Canada’s senators are now requred to retire at age 75, save the ones that were appointed before this change happened (1982?)
Since you’ve all answered my questions so well, I’ll tack on another question. Where did Canada’s idea of the senate come from? Were the Americans doing it before us?
Although I don’t have a cite, I believe that the majority of Canadian senators are not retired politicians. Rather, they are cronies of the Prime Minister, loyal party members or fundraisers, or simply celebrities eg. ex-hockey players.
Note that they need not actually do anything, or attend Parliament, in order to collect their “pay”. Membership in the Senate is a sinecure. There are plenty of infamous reports of senators not attending for essentially years on end.
I am both embarrassed and outraged that my tax dollars support such people. Not only are they are not elected, but they usually receive their appointments by virtue of patronage (i.e. payback for their political help). “Only in Canada - pity.”
I think you’d need a cite on that. You’re right about them being mostly people who are friends of the prime minister, but they’re usually political allies – politicians themselves – loyal backers of whoever happens to be PM at the time.
Our own Liberal MP for our riding – Raymond Lavigne – was promoted to the Senate last year. My roommate had run against him in the preceeding election, and as near as we could figure, he didn’t do much of anything – except avoid criticizing Chrétien.
Others, like celebrities, do exist. They’re not the majority, though.
Also not entirely true. Unless they have a really good excuse – generally health problems – a senator’s pay will get docked eventually. They can take a disturbingly large number of days off without a sick-note, IIRC.
Well, that kindof crosses the line from GQ to GD, but I think most Canadians would agree with you, there. I’d like to see it transformed into some sort of democratically-elected body, myself.
Of course, corruption and patronage are hardly a Canadian monopoly…
I’m pretty sure it was modelled on the British House of Lords. Our system follows the British system very, very closely, with only a few minor differences. Not surprising since we split from Britain peacefully, and we’ve always had very close relations with “the mother country.”
Of course, Canada didn’t have lords to fill up its equivalent of the House of Lords. So a Senate made up of appointed, rather than inherited, positions was created instead.
True – but there’s precedent for resignation from this. There was a senator that was pressured into resigning about 5 years ago although I can’t recall his name. I do recall that he was in Mexico at the time of his banishment.