Talk:Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is it possible that...

...those who are elected to the House tend to better represent the Best of the Public? Would it be possible to examine the overall backgrounds of House members as opposed to Senate members to ascertain how far their backgrounds are removed from the public? I suspect we would find that far fewer Senate members tend to have "common man" backgrounds, and thus, that it's easier for them to fall into the limousine liberal mindset. --Benp 11:11, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Superb insight ... and I think the rules of the House are more welcoming to the best of the public than the clubby rules of the Senate.--Andy Schlafly 12:59, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Interesting Note and My take

When the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 was shoved through the Democratic-controlled Congress—despite strong opposition from the dramatically dying Whig Party—and signed into law by Franklin Peirce, it was the biggest setback for the Abolition movement since the Fugitive Slave Act four years earlier. The passage of this bill led to the formation of the Republican Party—and the final demise of the Whigs—and the first ever Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1855. Yet even though the opposition held control of the House, the Democrats still held control of the Senate and thus it wouldn't be until the Election of 1860 before the Republicans took control of both Houses.

I think we still need to remember that the reason the Senate is more Liberal than the House, is because there is a laggard factor. Congressmen serve a term of two years, while a term is six years for a Senator. Six years ago the nation was very upset with the actions of Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katerina and thus it is important to look at the Senate as a window into the past. Now before someone starts talking about reforming the election process, remember that the US Constitution originally mandated that the Senate be elected by state legislatures—not popular vote—and if we look at the makeup of state legislatures in 2004 and 2006 we would see that the US Senate would have been made up of more Republicans than Democrats, because of Republican majority in state legislatures. My point; the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing the first time around! -- Austenbosten 13:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Longer terms to avoid reactionary politics

From what I know of the Australian Senate which based on the US Senate, the longer and overlapping terms are to keep the government under check.. unless there was a huge backlash against liberals/conservitives for a good ten years there will always be a strong opposition to keep radical laws at bay whether it is conservitives rolling out huge tax cuts or liberals undertaking massive tax increases, it is there to make moderation the result and not radicalism. Jtibbs 02:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Influence of money?

How about the fact that, since the Senate races take place on a much larger scale than the house ones, they almost always require more funding? This means that candidates are far more likely to give in to liberal special interests and unions, since their donations can be more valuable to them than sticking to principles.--MorrisF 09:14, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Are you saying that only liberal interest groups try to influence elections? I think there's plenty of lobbyist money going to both parties. JDWpianist 10:11, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Well no, of course there's money flowing around on both sides of the spectrum. But liberals are far more likely to flip-flop their opinion (think John Kerry), so it's far more frequent for them to change their opinion around to suit the needs of whoever is signing the check. True conservatives tend to be a lot more dedicated to their values, and won't sell out their constituents.--MorrisF 19:29, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Does anyone agree with me?--MorrisF 22:58, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Not really. I think you're indulging in some special pleading. There's only one reason that so many Republicans and Democrats in Congress were for the bailout. You can say they weren't "true conservatives," but on the same token "true liberals" can complain that John Kerry wasn't one of them. JDWpianist 12:14, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Big-money donors like Hollywood types tend to be more liberal than churchgoers and homeschoolers, and hence Senate winners tend to more liberal than grassroots campaigners who can win in the House.--Andy Schlafly 00:24, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Indeed. There's a reason there's no conservative version of someone like George Soros, who uses his money to bend politicians to his will.--MorrisF 01:27, 13 August 2011 (EDT)