[eli31772]

Hey everybody!

I'm Eliyahu from Israel, admiring from afar the political process in the US. We have a lot to learn from you on democratic political culture.

I was wondering if you have any name for a situation when a state is represented on the Senate by senators from the opposite parties, and also what tends to be the political dynamics in such a situation.

I wish you all a fruitful and fair election!

[Fr_Chuck]

The Senate is just a voting body, and they are to represent the people who vote for them. Two from the same party may be as far apart as two from different parties.

It is the parties and their numbers that get into the Senate.

[BABRAM]

Eliyahu, kol Israel. I trust you had a tovah Rosh Hashanah. Think of the Senate, or the individuals, those senators, as representative of views, ideas, that ideally hold to the ideology of party affiliations. Every state has two senators elected for six-year terms. However the trick after being elected to the Senate is compromise because it takes a majority to get bills passed. Although it seems like there is a lot of political fighting judging from the news (and this does happen more frequently in an election year), in actuality given the nature of some issues often middle ground has been achieved.

[tomder55]

A little history of the Senate. This August body was an afterthought by the founding fathers . They knew they wanted a people's house of representatives that would be sensitive to public opinion. They created it with each state getting proportional representation.

However there were issues about the nature of federalism that the founders disagreed about and those issues almost nipped the republic in the bud.

Small states were distrustful of giving too much power to the larger states and there was much disagreement in the Constitutional Convention on how to resolved it.

The 2 delegates from Connecticut with help from the New Jersey delegation proposed a bi-cameral legislature. Where the House of Representatives would have proportional representation by the election of the people; and the Senate would be an equal representation of the states by Senators SELECTED FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURES; intended to represent the states.

The Senate would be the so called deliberative body .They would have longer terms so that business could be conducted without the constant threat of having to go before the people in an electoral environment .

This system served the country well and some of Americas most famous statesmen came from the Senate. But the country amended the constitution in 1913. The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators.


This has in turn subjected the Senators to the pressure of electoral politics. This weakened states rights and the balance of power between states and the Federal government further than they had already been diluted .

As a result ,millions of dollars are spend by Senatorial candidates trying to secure a permant position in the chamber .Often this results in corruption of the worse kind . But still their 6 year terms makes them often immune from the consequences of the corruption ;until at least they are carted out of the chamber in hand cuffs.. The Senate now participates in doling out vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to "the general welfare"... payback to the patrons who fund their campaigns.The net result is that they are no longer accountable to either the electorate or the states.

It is rare that we have a situation like we have this year where a Senator will advance to the Presidency . The reason that is true in my view is that for the most part this body of the legislature is populated by a buffoon class of politician. They are no longer acccountable to anyone but the special interests who fund their campaigns. Ironically the biggest argument for the amendment was to free the Senate from what progressives called corrupt state politics.


Article 5 of the US constitution clearly says that the system set up for the states selection of the Senate could only be amended by unanamous consent of the States .

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

When the 17th was passed there were at least 10 states that did not consent.

The founders had gone from abusive monarchy rule to abusive majoritarian rule in the form of the Articles of Confederation ,and had set up a system that would put a check on both forms of government . With the 17th amendment and the move towards direct democracy ,the United States is increasingly becoming a nation the founders would not recognize. Sure they put in the amendment process because they realized that as times changed there would be a need to also change the government .But I think that most of them saw the danger in the tyranny of the majority.
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that it the federal nature of the founding minimized the possibility that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens, or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison.

Finally to answer your question ;the Senators often vote now in the interests of the party over the people of the states they represent. To the extent that their electoral interests and that of their monied patrons coincide,they represent their states interests .But that is their secondary consideration as there is no real accountability to the states anymore.