Thank you, dear colleague for this fine column. I have only one point to make in criticism: the Senate was NEVER intended to be "representative" in the way that your text suggests it should be. That was, and is, supposed to be the job of the House. The Senate has ALWAYS been intended to represent the STATES. The introduction of direct el…
Thank you, dear colleague for this fine column. I have only one point to make in criticism: the Senate was NEVER intended to be "representative" in the way that your text suggests it should be. That was, and is, supposed to be the job of the House. The Senate has ALWAYS been intended to represent the STATES. The introduction of direct election of Senators early in the 20th century did not change that. The difference between the functions of the two legislative bodies is a core principle of the Constitution. Indeed, the framers understood very well that by constructing the legislative branch in this way they were giving more weight to agrarian states and counteracting more urbanized ones.
The core problem is gerrymandering, which has been around for a very long time, has been done by BOTH parties over the years (e.g. by DEMS in the South when they held power there), distorts representative government in the House and thus prevents that body from exercising its intended function. On THIS point you are on the money. The voting rights bill now under debate is intended to end gerrymandering, among other things; for that reason alone it deserves to pass.
Thank you, dear colleague for this fine column. I have only one point to make in criticism: the Senate was NEVER intended to be "representative" in the way that your text suggests it should be. That was, and is, supposed to be the job of the House. The Senate has ALWAYS been intended to represent the STATES. The introduction of direct election of Senators early in the 20th century did not change that. The difference between the functions of the two legislative bodies is a core principle of the Constitution. Indeed, the framers understood very well that by constructing the legislative branch in this way they were giving more weight to agrarian states and counteracting more urbanized ones.
The core problem is gerrymandering, which has been around for a very long time, has been done by BOTH parties over the years (e.g. by DEMS in the South when they held power there), distorts representative government in the House and thus prevents that body from exercising its intended function. On THIS point you are on the money. The voting rights bill now under debate is intended to end gerrymandering, among other things; for that reason alone it deserves to pass.