Ok. Meanwhile there is no oath that senators take that requires them to represent the people of their state. And further, as I pointed out, the senate does not represent people, it represents states. It was explicitly set up this way, and until 1913 senators were appointed by the states, not elected at all.
I literally posted the text of the oath they take. Their duties include representation of their constituents. The US is a representative democracy. Even when legislatures elected the Senate representatives, they legislatures were still elected. You’re revising the history of how our country was set up.
Please provide a link to the official duties of senators that includes ‘representing the people of their state’.
I agree that the US is generally a form of representative democracy, however the senate explicitly represents the states, not the people within the states, and always has. The fact that senators are equally allocated per state, rather than by population, with each state, regardless of population have the same number of senators does not support the theory that it is a representative democratic institution. The intention was explicitly to maintain the power of the individual states within a federation.
That makes no sense. What is a “state” except for the people who vote in that state? States don’t have agency and don’t make decisions or provide directives so the people within them elect representatives to carry out their view of how the government should be run. The separation between the house and Senate is simply to counteract the voting power of more populous areas vs more rural areas, just like the electoral college.
Ok. Meanwhile there is no oath that senators take that requires them to represent the people of their state. And further, as I pointed out, the senate does not represent people, it represents states. It was explicitly set up this way, and until 1913 senators were appointed by the states, not elected at all.
I literally posted the text of the oath they take. Their duties include representation of their constituents. The US is a representative democracy. Even when legislatures elected the Senate representatives, they legislatures were still elected. You’re revising the history of how our country was set up.
Please provide a link to the official duties of senators that includes ‘representing the people of their state’.
I agree that the US is generally a form of representative democracy, however the senate explicitly represents the states, not the people within the states, and always has. The fact that senators are equally allocated per state, rather than by population, with each state, regardless of population have the same number of senators does not support the theory that it is a representative democratic institution. The intention was explicitly to maintain the power of the individual states within a federation.
That makes no sense. What is a “state” except for the people who vote in that state? States don’t have agency and don’t make decisions or provide directives so the people within them elect representatives to carry out their view of how the government should be run. The separation between the house and Senate is simply to counteract the voting power of more populous areas vs more rural areas, just like the electoral college.