andrewducker | Any USA experts care to enlighten me?

The Senate, the upper house, has two members from each state.

The House of Representatives has a varying number of representatives per state depending on the state's population. This is the "lower" house.

Each house has particular privileges and restrictions. Laws must pass through both houses and be signed by the President.

The idea is that the more populous states have more influence in the House, but all states are represented equally in the Senate as a balance against the tyranny of the majority. This means that a large state like California has more votes in the lower house. However, a senator from Maine is equal to a Californian senator.

There are other quirks that favor the House of Representatives in tax bills, etc., to fine tune this system.

Total Senators: 100 (50 states x 2)
Total Representatives: 438
Total Congressmen: 538

These three numbers don't change, but the distribution of reps. is redetermined every time we do a census.

Also, these correspond to the number of electoral votes. A state's electoral value is equal to the number of senators (always 2) plus the number of reps (Wyoming has 1; California has 53).

Washington, DC counts as 3 electoral votes, even though they don't have any senators or reps. But that is another discussion entirely.

Each state gets two senators, and a number of representatives that depends on the population. It was a compromise, back when the constitution was being written -- half the states thought that all states should get equal representation, and the other half thought that the bigger states should get more pull. So, compromise! Let's do BOTH!

And, you know, I'd write out a long thing about what they do and what roles they play and etc, but Google found me one.

And, of course, the cynical and politically jaded answer is "The difference between the Senate and the House is that senators take six years to get rid of, and representatives only take two."

Oh, and I forgot the most important part, from a political machination viewpoint -- the House can potentially turn over every two years, because every seat is up for re-election every two years. The Senate is staggered, so that at the most, 1/3 of the seats can have new warm bodies in them every two years. Since we only have two effective parties (grumble grumble), this can be really important at mid-term elections (halfway through a presidency).

You actually think we have two effective parties? I'd say that we have two different groupings that take turns masquerading as each other and both are rather ineffective. Belonging to one or the other party used to mean something but that seemed to go away either in the late '70s or the '80s.

Oh, no, we absolutely have two parties. One wants your wallet, the other wants your civil liberties :P

It used to be that I could figure out which one you meant by each of those. But I could make a case for either of them being either now.
This all really hit home when the Republicans started extolling the virtues of deficit spending while the Democrats were crying for the need to be fiscally conservative.

I didn't say they were always the same party!

There are less fools in the Senate.

There are fewer people in the Senate. Coincidence? I think not. :)

Aye.

I was going to comment, but the previous posters pretty well covered it.

Hello!

Its a fantastic show isn't it!

What hasn't been mentioned that I've noticed is that both houses must pass a law before it is sent to the executive branch for signature. With the senate, every single state has an equal voice in the vote (it's that checks and balances thing that the founding fathers were so into)

the structure may be found here (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/files/gov_chart.pdf) in excrutiating detail

Or here (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html) for good general explanations that explain things better than I can (Yeah, it's a kid's site but it's accurate). I have such trouble getting past my own cynical views of my government that it's difficult to explain it to others without inserting bias.

In theory, Congressmen/Representatives are more responsive to the needs and desires of the people of their specific district (the small slice of the state they represent), whereas Senators are concerned with the state as a whole.

Congressmen are lower in the food chain in general, though their influence will vary depending on where they're from, how active they are in the party, what committees they happen to sit on/chair and any other factors that might give them a lot of influence.

For the politically ambitious, it's just a stepping stone that many skip (Hillary Clinton for instance); Presidents are most often former Governors or Senators.

Your average American might know who their state Senators are, are somewhat less likely to know their local Congressman by name, and are pretty unlikely to know any other Representatives from their state (or at least that's my sense).

Most Americans only know who their Representative is when they're truly pissed off about something /and/ realize that the President isn't to blame for everything.

Originally, the Senate were to be the elite and educated while the House was to represent the common people. This can be seen somewhat in the powers that each has. This distinction has mostly been lost though and most of what's possible has been laid out by the other commentors.

Legislation can originate only in Congress; the President technically has the power only to sign or veto. Some types of legislation must originate in either the House or the Senate, but I can't remember which types -- and I don't remember TWW as noting that specifically.

Any USA experts care to enlighten me?

no subject

also

no subject

no subject

Re: two parties

Re: two parties

Re: two parties

Re: two parties

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Senators vs. Representatives

A finer point