General Discussion

Xithras

(16,191 posts)

15. It was intended to be a slightly more democratic equivalent to the British House of Lords.

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:23 PM

Feb 2014

In Britain, the House of Lords traditionally represented the nobility, while the House of Commons represented the people. Laws introduced in one House had to be approved in the other. In practice, this prevented the nobility from passing laws that the people didn't like, and kept the democratic House of Commons from passing any laws that were onerous to the nobility. It was designed so that the people had a voice in the national government, but neutered that voice so it didn't do anything that the powerful might object to.

The founders of the U.S. wanted to borrow the concept for the same reasons, but because the U.S. lacked a nobility, they gave the power of the Senate to the state legislatures. It's designed to limit the ability of a popular democracy to enact change that the state governments and politically powerful might object to. It's a check against the power of democracy.

Whether it's a "good" or "bad" thing largely depends on who you ask about it, and who is in power when you ask.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does a nonproportional Senate and non-proportional, non-democratic Electoral College harm democracy? [View all] CreekDog Feb 2014 OP

Rhetorical question in your headline, yes? At the moment, it's destroying us... villager Feb 2014 #1

^^^^This^^^^ n/t 2banon Feb 2014 #9

Combine that with a non-proportional House through Gerrymandering and a non-proportional Judiciary BlueStreak Feb 2014 #2

^^^^^THIS TOO^^^^ (except the founders had the Senate seats by appointment) 2banon Feb 2014 #11

The Repubs would control the Senate today if it was proportional due to the 2010 debacle. LonePirate Feb 2014 #3

if California had 12 Senators or 12% of the Senate it would be majority Republican? CreekDog Feb 2014 #7

Your original hypothetical implied a non-proportional Senate was not desirable. LonePirate Feb 2014 #12

yes: statewide elections for 12 different senators, 6 year terms which are staggered... CreekDog Feb 2014 #19

You seem to think that CA would elect all D Senators while the red states would not elect more Rs LonePirate Feb 2014 #24

Most of the R states are small, they wouldn't get more senators. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2014 #26

Republicans haven't won a statewide election since 2006 CreekDog Feb 2014 #30

Repubs have a better chance of electing one of these new CA senators than Dems do in TX LonePirate Feb 2014 #38

so i'm supposed to oppose a proportional or representative structure for the Senate because of... CreekDog Feb 2014 #40

I don't care if you support or oppose it. LonePirate Feb 2014 #42

i'm sure you would have said the same about the pointlessness of debating slavery CreekDog Feb 2014 #43

In what way is your fringe, very minority opinion on settled governance any way similar to the ... LonePirate Feb 2014 #50

would you like me to shut up about proportional representation in the Senate? CreekDog Feb 2014 #53

Yes it does, if I were Holder I'd error on the side of preserving democracy vs letting GOP hamstring uponit7771 Feb 2014 #4

The function of the Senate is anti-democratic by design. Xithras Feb 2014 #5

and also by design: slavery, 3/5ths compromise, not letting women and blacks vote CreekDog Feb 2014 #6

The notion that the U.S. was designed to be "free and democratic" isn't supported by history. Xithras Feb 2014 #10

most parliamentary systems in democratic nations aren't based on states running elections CreekDog Feb 2014 #22

Indeed. Xithras Feb 2014 #28

You've made some very informative an interesting posts here. theHandpuppet Feb 2014 #63

You basically had two different camps during the writing of the constitution davidn3600 Feb 2014 #23

i can see the sense in this post, never understood why it was so, thanks loli phabay Feb 2014 #8

It was intended to be a slightly more democratic equivalent to the British House of Lords. Xithras Feb 2014 #15

yeah it makes sense, having checks and balances is overall a good thing even if not always loli phabay Feb 2014 #16

actually democracy isn't your concern based previous posts CreekDog Feb 2014 #20

yet you seem to believe that some americans ie rural folks dont count. see how that works loli phabay Feb 2014 #35

no, I think each voter should count equally, 1 urban voter = 1 rural voter CreekDog Feb 2014 #36

you seem to be reading something that is not there, no surprise loli phabay Feb 2014 #37

so is our federal public transit funding policy controlled by large cities? CreekDog Feb 2014 #39

no idea, mayby the areas with mass transit should control the funds for it loli phabay Feb 2014 #41

I would say public transportation in cities gets more money than rural areas seveneyes Feb 2014 #56

so you're saying that rural roads are less funded that public transit in this country? CreekDog Feb 2014 #60

Didn't mention roads at all seveneyes Feb 2014 #66

+1 One_Life_To_Give Feb 2014 #13

Hell, Senators weren't even elected when the omnicient "founding fathers" put this mess together BlueStreak Feb 2014 #18

They would be awed by the military Skink Feb 2014 #58

This ^^^^. It was designed that way for a reason .... oldhippie Feb 2014 #27

Excellent civics reminder. ManiacJoe Feb 2014 #32

They were both instituted as bulwarks to prevent democracy. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #14

That was the whole point. kenny blankenship Feb 2014 #17

No seveneyes Feb 2014 #21

The US system is a mess. Westminster systems do it much better. NuclearDem Feb 2014 #25

I wonder how the Westminster system would work ruling 300+ million people seveneyes Feb 2014 #29

Alaska now has only one representative Blue_In_AK Feb 2014 #31

Ask India, their Parliament is a modified version of the Westminster system (n/t) Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #47

Not sure if the problems with India are the fault of their government seveneyes Feb 2014 #49

Their problems are a result of a history of poverty and colonial exploitation... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #51

The original Westminster still has an unelected House of Lords CJCRANE Feb 2014 #34

The House of Lords acts as a revising body more than anything Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #46

The rest of the world has essentially neutered their upper houses Hippo_Tron Feb 2014 #59

I think it skews the Federal government disproportionately in favor of rural conservatives, yes. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #33

Hmm. Puerto Rico has the 29th largest population no voting member in the house HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #44

I was speaking more specifically about the Senate. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #52

Yes, I understand. If you look at it the nat. avg. iss rougly 720K citizens per elector HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #54

Yeah, I hear that, too. Only thing is IMHO the E. College has less real-world impact Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #57

I suppose folks notice what irritates them... HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #64

I definitely think it leads to certain states, i.e. "swing"- having disproportionate influence Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #65

That's kind of the point Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #45

i think the senate and the house Niceguy1 Feb 2014 #48

There are a variety of types of "democracy." Igel Feb 2014 #55

I support the National Popular Vote plan Gothmog Feb 2014 #61

I would support the following reforms: Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #62

The Senate is about state equality as intended madville Feb 2014 #67

not at all GRACIEBIRD Feb 2014 #68