Do people in the USA forget the purpose of having both a senate and a house of representatives?

A senator is supposed to represent the interests of your state government. That's why they originally were chosen by the state government and not elected by the people. Your representative is supposed to represent the interests of the people in your district. Seems that most people these days forget that. Why hate on Kyrsten Sinema? I think she is doing a good job voting the interests of her state - one that is barely blue. I'm not sure why she should be expected to be progressive, because even the democrats in Arizona are not very progressive.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Stopmakingsense · 56-60, F

Wow, too bad! I guess we'll never be a modern democracy.
Unless we have a Constitutional Convention and rewrite that thing.

plaguewatcher · M

i think using a system from 2 centuries ago is not wise, why not update our system?
would you be happy if things were like they were in say 1790?

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@plaguewatcher I'm not disagreeing with that. But as of now the system has not been updated.

plaguewatcher · M

@trollslayer actually there have been many updates.. al the amendments to the constitution are updates
so is use of the initiative system,, a GREAT way to put law making back in citizen hands

SW-User

Our system has become more about supporting the party than the people.

That said, I do think representatives should represent ALL the people in their distract, not just the people who voted for them.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

You are correct, as far as you go. The additional reason for that distinction was to put all states, no matter of size, on the same footing in the U.S. Senate since states with the largest populations were going to have the advantage in the House. That effort to provide some balance, to provide a brake on the danger of mobocracy, where everyone goes following what's "trending" like lemmings, is very constructive. The filibuster rule in the Senate -- which is not part of the Constitution -- allowing the minority to essentially block EVEN DISCUSSION of anything they don't like -- not so much.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

Sinema isn't being vilified for not being progressive. Her horrifying performance steeped in arrogance without clearly stating her position and refusing to support her stance with the people of Arizona is the reason why she needs to be dropped. She was sent to Congress to get things done, not proudly stand as a roadblock for anything to get done.

Stopmakingsense · 56-60, F

@MarkPaul no government-. Drown it in a bathtub!- Isn't that what moderates have in mind?

Northwest · M

[quote]I'm not sure why she should be expected to be progressive,[/quote]

Because she entered politics on the Green Party side, and used progressives to rise through the political ladder. She should not act "cute" with her "I am in front you", when asked about her position, and really focus on the needs of the people of her state. She's opposed to some things that her state needs.

MethDozer · M

Actually the purpose was because smaller and less populated states feared having little influence and representation in Washington.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@MethDozer Exactly. Small states wanted equal footing with more populous states in regard to the direction the federal government went regarding national interests. The budget is a national interest. Sinema standing in the way is probably what the majority of the people of Arizona want.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...