Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic The Canadian Election

Yes, the Constitution originally had legislatures appointing senators.

Back in the late 18'th century, the Founding Fathers did not always trust direct elections, due to logistics. Many people didn't understand the issues with communications almost negligible, so the Founding Fathers created the Senate as a check against the popularly-elected House. It was not until communications became easy enough that campaigning was possible that direct elections of senators was approved by amendment.

The House had small enough districts that campaigning was practical, but statewide or national elections were a completely different matter as no forms of electronic communications were available and the fastest mode of transport was the horse. The small districts permitted popular elections.

Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers always assumed a citizen legislator, who would serve for a short time and then go home, so they never envisioned a professional politician class who had time to campaign for two straight years.

Of course, a second reason for the Senate was the Connecticut Compromise where the smaller states were afraid of the power of the large states, so while the House was apportioned based on population, all states had two senators regardless of size.

A similar reason was behind the Electoral College as insulation against a direct popular vote.

Hey, well at least your senate has some relevance. Ours... Well, they are all appointed by the Prime Minister. And they are appointed until they are 75. They can't propose legislation or stop a bill. They can only slow it down.

Oh, right, and the majority of them spend their winters in Florida .

I call the Canadian Senate the Old Politicians' Retirement Home .

Oh, oh, oh! One more thing I almost forgot. If we wanted to change our Senate, make it more relevant, we'd have to amend our constitution. But... well, we can't even get all of our provinces to sign our current constitution. And there is no mechanism provided in the constitution to change it!

The Constitution differentiates the two houses in a couple of different ways.

All legislation that has to do with taxes or spending must originate in the House of Representatives. Once the bill has been proposed, both houses are on an equal footing. Since all bills enacted into law must pass both houses, there isn't any difference between them in terms of specialization. Both houses have their equivalent committees with certain Congressmen or Senators specializing in different areas and spending their times in committees. For instance, both houses have an Armed Services Committee, a Banking Committee, a Foreign Relations Committee, a Commerce Committee, an Intelligence Committee, and so on.

The Senate was given the power of advice and consent, meaning that all treaties negotiated by the president and all appointees made by the president must be approved by a majority vote of the Senate. That includes judges, cabinet members, ambassadors, and even senior officers in the military.

Impeachment is another area of differentiation. Any officer in the government can be impeached. With that process, the House votes on a majority basis to "impeach," i.e. indict. The House then appoints its members as the prosecution if impeachment happens. A trial then takes place in the Senate with the House members prosecuting the case. The Senate convicts on a 2/3 majority vote. Anything less is an acquittal. Two presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson (who followed Lincoln) avoided conviction by a single vote. Bill Clinton was impeached but was acquitted by the Senate.

If the electoral college fails to give a majority, the House votes on a state-by-state basis for president (each state gets one vote, so whoever has a majority in a state will vote for their candidate while a tie means a state gets no vote). The Senate votes for vice president on a majority vote.

Both houses are roughly equal in terms of power. The use of the terms "lower chamber" for the House and "upper chamber" for the Senate are just semantics and really have no meaning. Rules make the Senate much harder to pass legislation with the filibuster available for all but spending measures, while in the House, even a one-vote majority gives absolute iron-clad control to the party in power, so in effect, the House tends to be much more partisan while the Senate requires consensus on everything or nothing happens.

Quick tutorial...



Congress is comprised of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There are 100 members of the Senate - 2 for each state.

There are 435 members of the House - based on the population after the last census [every xxx0 year and redistributed before the xxx2 election]. Every state has at least one Representative. California has... 55 iirc.

All money bills *must* start in the House [which isn't to say that all bills dealing with money start in the House ]. All the budget stuff starts in the House, but there are often riders etc to bills that contain the 'pork' we've all heard so much about - those can start either place.

The Senate does a few other things the House doesn't [as the 'upper' body]. They approve some presidential appointments [about 800 of the 7000 executive department appointments, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, etc. and judges/justices], they also have to approve treaties and have the power to declare war [which is not the same as sending troops - the last official *war* we were in was WWII].

They have different roles in the impeachment process. The House acts as a Grand Jury and indicts/impeaches a person [2 presidents and... 9? 15? judges in history]. The Senate acts as the trial jury [with the Chief Justice presiding] in impeachment proceedings.

They both deal with things like import/export taxes and such but the State Department handles official relations with other countries and that's part of executive branch.

Most of what they deal with is domestic stuff. The president - as the head of the executive branch - is both head of state and head of government which isn't the case in Commonwealth countries like Canada/etc. The Queen is the head of state/ceremonial head of the country but the PM is the head of government/chief executive. He deals with most foreign affairs through the state department.

Carol [who hopes she managed to get all that right and who is avoiding doing what she needs to do...]

Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly, if a person says they are a member of Congress, they could be saying they are in the House or the Senate - is that correct? So... what is a Congressman? Is he a member of the House - or could he be a member of either?

ML (who's main goal at the moment is to keep Carol from doing what she's supposed to be doing )

Roger, Carol, thanks for the clarification. I was indeed mistaken about the direct election of Senators. My apologies for misinforming you, Carol.

I'll check the Constitution next time before I refer to it in print.

When someone refers to a Congressman (or Congresswoman), that usually refers to a member of the House of Representatives. That is their official title. A member of the Senate will have the title of Senator.

But the term, congressmen, can be used generically to refer to any member of the House or Senate.

More on the electoral college. It seems outdated today, but the reasoning behind it back in the 18'th century was rather sound. Since communications were very poor back then, it was typical that the average person would not even know the candidates for president. But the average person would know prominent members of their community. So in came the electoral college where people voted for electors, who would be well-known people in their communities. People essentially voted for representatives who they would trust to be informed on the presidential candidates and would vote for the person who would better represent their community.

The electors would be directly voted on by the people. They would then convene in December to discuss the candidates for president. These better informed representatives of the people would then vote for president. The winner would become president and the runner-up would become vice president.

Not until much later did electors disappear on ballots to be replaced by the actual names of the presidential candidates. Today, political parties appoint members who would be electors. When a candidate wins a state, the electors appointed by the winning party would then travel to Washington to vote on the president and vice president separately.

Hehe - Alisha's taking care of that by sending me back 5 beta'd chapters of OTOH.

And election coverage and general apathy...

Though DH won't be happy if a lot of it's not done...

Anyway...

Technically, they're all congresspeople, but Senators are usually referred to as Senator and Reps can be either Rep so and so or Congressperson So and So - I believe, as Roger said, when they're being all official [like on the floor of the House], they say something like 'the chair recognizes the Congresswo/man from such and such' or something along those lines. On the news or whatever you'll usually hear them referred to as Rep. so and so from state. At least that's what I usually hear.

Carol

Thanks for the history lesson, Roger. That does make sense.

Hey, wouldn't it be funny if the electoral college got to Washington to vote and all decided to vote for the other guy (okay, so maybe I do have a weird sense of humor )

ML

/whispers

They don't vote in Washington. They vote in their own state capital and then the results are sent to Washington.

/ends whispers



ETA:
That said, in some places they are required to vote the way the state told them to. In other states, the electors are chosen by the party of the candidate who won the state. So in Missouri, where I live, if McCain wins, the MO Republicans pick the electors. There's no way they'd change their votes to Obama.

There are 'faithless electors' who break with what they're supposed to do, but it has never affected the election outcome. In... 2000? one of the electors didn't vote for VP as a protest over DC not having representation in Congress*. I think that's what it was - something along those lines.

Incidentally, Washington was the one president to have a unanimous electoral vote. Someone else would have but one elector didn't vote because he believed only Washington should hold that distinction. [Okay - it's been like 7 years since I read that and I could be wrong on that one - a quick google shows that's the case for Washington - not a clue who the other guy was... and my computer hates wikis...]

*DC is not represented in Congress. They do, however, have 3 votes in the Electoral College.

Carol
National Archives and Records Administration Electoral College FAQs
NARA Electoral Scorecard - couldn't find the second election I mentioned, but Washington was unanimous in both elections - it only goes through 1996, but I know Bush wasn't close to unanimous .

The last faithless elector was in 2000 where Barbara Lett-Simmons, representing Washington, D.C. abstained in her vote for president as a protest for the lack of Congressional representation for D.C.

If it had been important, she would have voted for Gore, but in the end, the final tally was 271-266 and one abstention.

Electors are appointed by parties based on their loyalty and activism for the party. They don't just appoint anyone, so the odds of a faithless elector throwing an election is pretty much zero.

Back in the old days, a lot of negotiations went on and vote after vote of the electors would happen. These electors were not tied to any one candidate, so they were free to elect anyone.

In 1788 and 1792, the vote was unanimous for Washington, but not after that. John Adams in 1796 barely squeaked out a majority against Thomas Jefferson, his old friend and adversary by 71-68. In the rematch in 1800, Adams placed third after Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

Apology accepted, Terry. but not necessary - it does my soul good to dig into a reference book every once in a while.

c.

Ahh... Aaron Burr... Gotta love 'im .

Carol

Anybody remember that really funny "Got Milk" commercial where this guy eating a sandwich tries to call a radio show to win a prize? Unfortunately his mouth is full just as the radio host picks up and he answers, "Aaon Buh." The question was "Who shot Alexander Hamilton in the famous duel in 1804?" The answer, of course, is Aaron Burr, but the radio host couldn't understand the guy on the phone.

Hehe - yes I remember that!

The only VP who tried to raise his own army to annex Mexico IIRC...

Carol

I've been learning a lot about US politics this year, mostly through discussions on my LiveJournal (and ironic to mention this on a thread originally about the Canadian election... ). Thanks, Roger, for the very useful explanation of the distinction between the House and Senate; I just realised recently while re-watching all of The West Wing that I honestly had no idea what it was, or whether a Congressman had less status than a Senator.

Postscript to that comment: we have three nominees this year who are senators. Would it be unusual to have a Congressman/woman running for president?

Second comment: I'm still trying to get my head around this notion of attaching 'riders' to bills. That's an aspect of US politics that for a long time just went over my head. In my experience of political systems, bills can be amended during their passage through parliament, but amendments would have to be 'on topic', as it were. There's no way that anyone could propose an amendment to a bill to, say, increase the minumum wage which would (for example) provide funding for an environmental clean-up project. They're two completely different topics.

So how did this tradition of 'riders' come about, and how long have they been used as ways of getting chunks of money for pet projects that might otherwise not have been funded? And is The West Wing right when episodes occasionally show riders attached for proposals the president of the day could never support, attached purely as a bargaining tool?


Wendy

Okay, now I'm upset!!!!! I was just watching the CBS news and they were saying that a number of businesses are offering freebes for people who voted!!!! For example, Starbucks is offering a free coffee if you voted!!!! And ice cream!!!! Someone if offering ice cream!!!!

We don't get freebes when we vote

I think this campaign has settled the issue about a woman running.
All those Hillary / Sarah is a c..t tee-shirts. That nutcracker. The South Park exploding v.....a episode. etc, etc

Don't know about the Congressmen running, though. American history types, help ?

c.

Wendy -

Generally speaking, it would be unusual for a Congresswo/man to run for P/VP. In recent years, governors are much more likely with GHW Bush being the lone exception since... Nixon? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

Senators tend to have more statewide name recognition [incumbent House members win over 90% of the time, incumbent Senators win about 60-65% of the time because they are challenged by governors etc with high state name recognition] and that eventually can translate into more nationwide name recognition which is vital to election. Few Representatives earn that same name recognition on a national level.

Another thing to realize is that the entire House is up for election every two years. Senate terms are alternating six years, so only 1/3 of them are up for election at a time - none of the three currently in the running are up for election. Members of the House would have to

A: chose to 'lose' their job in the House or

B: run two campaigns and hope that their constituents elect them to the House even if they're in a close election for the presidency

and that's just not a good choice for most of them. That has happened from time to time in the Senate - where a seat is up for election while the person in it runs for P/VP - I forget the last time... Edwards maybe? I remember one [but don't ask me who] who won the Senate seat while losing the P/VP, but I don't remember how close the race was.

Governors can face the same thing. Bush was not up for reelection in 00. Palin is not up for reelection this year, but it can happen.

Carol

Edit: Carol, I think the vast majority of Americans are completely disgusted by those kinds of things. Even if McCain/Palin lose today, I think we'll have a female P/VP with in the next 12 years or so [I know that seems like a long time, but that's only 3 elections]. I would be very surprised if both parties don't have serious female contenders - Palin, win or lose this year; Clinton [maybe, think she said she's done but...]; Pelosi perhaps; other women I've never heard of...

Carol, I hope you're right. But this campaign has left me so disheartened by both the MSM response and the internet response to female candidates. The latter, particularly, since presumably that suggests a younger demographic.

c.