That's an interesting point: that senators begin pandering to a national audience as soon as they take their senate seat and disregard the loyalties they are supposed to hold. I would agree that the senate would function much better if senators were accountable to fewer and more sophisticated voters. But then again, the parliamentary system runs on a similar indirect selection system for prime and department ministers and and the results don't seem much improved.
Trying to decide whether a senator should be beholden to a whimsical populace or a corrupt legislature seems to be the true definition of dilemma. It's so bad that I'd almost be willing to give land and titles a try again for the upper house. How bad could it be?
Trying to decide whether a senator should be beholden to a whimsical populace or a corrupt legislature seems to be the true definition of dilemma.
Which is why both options were put in place. There was supposed to be congressional representation for both the masses of idiots at large, and the collected idiocy at the state level.
Clearly true. My theory is that the federal system was designed to be in deadlock, and therefore nonproducing, 95% of the time. Argue and argue but nothing should ever get done, except in a time of genuine emergency. I think we would a whole lot better off if it was. The efficiency of the legislature we have now seems to cause a lot more problems than it solves.
Clearly true. My theory is that the federal system was designed to be in deadlock, and therefore nonproducing, 95% of the time. Argue and argue but nothing should ever get done, except in a time of genuine emergency. I think we would a whole lot better off if it was. The efficiency of the legislature we have now seems to cause a lot more problems than it solves.
Indeed, the legislature was supposed to be a hindrance to swift passage of laws. That was to make sure they were important enough to work hard to achieve. It was also supposed to be part time, not the permanent nightmare swamp it is.
(post is archived)