I remember in college we had a university political teacher, Dick Tindle who was a PHD in Political Science and we were very lucky to have him.
Anyways he once asked us... if everybody hates politicians, then why on earth would we want MORE of them?
That was his argument against an elected senate.
He did say the Senate was good for one thing, ironing out the legal "rough spots" in bills. Sometimes they'd send a bill to the senate first before it going through the commons. They'd look it over, fix what was dumb about the bill, be it legal language or something else, then it go to the house, go through both the house and the senate with greater ease.
But they couldn't do that with every bill because it would clog the process.
I always though they should take away the Senate, but split the senators into two camps and run bills through them first before going to the house. I know almost all senators are nominated via patronage appointments, but many of them have some actual experience in being a politician or lawyer of some sort and that can be put to good use.
no subject
Anyways he once asked us... if everybody hates politicians, then why on earth would we want MORE of them?
That was his argument against an elected senate.
He did say the Senate was good for one thing, ironing out the legal "rough spots" in bills. Sometimes they'd send a bill to the senate first before it going through the commons. They'd look it over, fix what was dumb about the bill, be it legal language or something else, then it go to the house, go through both the house and the senate with greater ease.
But they couldn't do that with every bill because it would clog the process.
I always though they should take away the Senate, but split the senators into two camps and run bills through them first before going to the house. I know almost all senators are nominated via patronage appointments, but many of them have some actual experience in being a politician or lawyer of some sort and that can be put to good use.