SkipCaptcha
229
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + + + +
Talk:Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House? (view source)
Revision as of 13:14, August 10, 2011
, 13:14, August 10, 2011→Influence of money?: new section
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. [[User:Jtibbs|Jtibbs]] 02:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
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. [[User:Jtibbs|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.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 09:14, 10 August 2011 (EDT)