Obviously, by their very nature there is a significant difference between the elected positions of senator and congressional representatives. What I'm curious about is common perceptions of what these differences are. So here's the question:

Do you perceive the role/status/whatever of your national or state senators and representatives differently? And if so, how?

Please offer your honest opinions, and not a textbook definition. I'm not talking about the individuals, but rather the positions.

Obviously, by their very nature there is a significant difference between the elected positions of senator and congressional representatives. What I'm curious about is common perceptions of what these differences are. So here's the question:

Do you perceive the role/status/whatever of your national or state senators and representatives differently? And if so, how?

Please offer your honest opinions, and not a textbook definition. I'm not talking about the individuals, but rather the positions.

Senators are better at disguising they are crooks vs. representatives.

I perceive the Senators as more of Washingtonians and the Representatives as local district politicians who just mull about at their state capitol.

Well, I would want my representative to champion local issues important in my district, while I would expect my Senator to have more influence on national/global issues.

Obviously, there is quite a bit of overlap--for example, representatives have to develop acumen in knowing the national and international issues of the day, and since Senators are usually around longer, they can have much more influence (and can bring home the pork) on local issues than a representative...

Very little difference in my perception of them, to be honest. They have the same job, represent their constituency.

Based soley on their terms, I would expect Reperesntavies to be more concerned with what I want, and Senators with what I should want.

Based on what I see, I think representaives resent having to run more often but are otherwise similar to senators..

I always figured senators should be a good deal taller.

I spent some time working for a Senator as an intern, so take this with that grain of salt....

Generally-speaking, Reps spend more time working on issues of importance to their home districts. Obviously this differs from state to state. For a Rep from Illinois, especially around the Chicago area, for example, that district can be small, whereas a Rep from Maine will effectively focus on statewide issues and how to advance them on a national scale.

Senators, on the other hand, work on issues of concern to their state as a whole.

The other big difference has to do with their independence. With the greater number of Reps and their elections every two years, Reps seem to toe the party line more often. There's also a vast amount of stuff going on in the House, and your average Rep won't necessarily pay attention to all of it.

Senators, on the other hand, are best understood by the following quote: "They all think they should be President." They're more likely to muse over issues on a national scale, and tend to build up a reputation of consistency on big issues, even if it means going against their party more than a Rep would. They have this flexibility, to an extent, of course, because they have longer terms and, I would argue, the advantage for an incumbent Senator is huge, when compared to a Rep.

Senators (and obviously this varies), tend to have at least a passing idea of what's going on with all Senate business, in the way that a lot of Reps won't. They can take a broader, and somewhat longer view. I think this is why you see a lot of stuff roar through the house (where one party can bash stuff through) and then come to a screeching halt in the Senate.

I perceive senators as older, more politically motivated (ie more inclined to vote in a way that benefits themselves than their constituents) and more corrupt than representatives.

I don't really believe that, but that's my snap opinion of the two.

Senators represent states, representatives represent people.

The theory behind our system is that senators will be wiser and more willing to make hard decisions than the representatives. I think in general senators tend to be more centrist and pragmatic, although not dramatically so.

It's only been in the last 100 years or so that the people directly elected senators. Before that, it was up to the legislature and/or governor of a state to pick the senators to represent their state.

I always figured senators should be a good deal taller.


6'3.


Read Master of the Senate.

Read Master of the Senate.

Good book.

This brings up a fundamental question that I have been wrestling with. We purposely set out to create a Representative Republic, as oppose to a pure Democracy. That means the representatives elected (to either House or Senate) are there to represent their constituents. This works well in bringing up legislation pertaining to their districts, as well as getting pieces of the pie to the district you represent. But where I see it failing is in truly representing your constituents - however diverse most are (there are relatively few homogenious districts). Would it be accurate to say that our representatives are solely representing their party regardless of their constituents? In part, they are one and the same but I perceive not to the extent we have seen (i.e., most representatives vote as if their constituents are constantly of one party or ideology). Would it be fair to say that this very issue is the root of the public's perception of the insular power with the Beltway?

This brings up a fundamental question that I have been wrestling with. We purposely set out to create a Representative Republic, as oppose to a pure Democracy. That means the representatives elected (to either House or Senate) are there to represent their constituents. This works well in bringing up legislation pertaining to their districts, as well as getting pieces of the pie to the district you represent. But where I see it failing is in truly representing your constituents - however diverse most are (there are relatively few homogenious districts). Would it be accurate to say that our representatives are solely representing their party regardless of their constituents? In part, they are one and the same but I perceive not to the extent we have seen (i.e., most representatives vote as if their constituents are constantly of one party or ideology). Would it be fair to say that this very issue is the root of the public's perception of the insular power with the Beltway?

In a bizarre way, the constituent vs party issue is moot. The reason for this is that congressional districts are so heavily gerrymandered that CD's aren't really that diverse--almost all congressional elections aren't very close. When the typical representative gets reelected by 65, 70, 80+% of the vote, you can be sure that the representative is probably of like mind politically to the overwhelming majority of his or her constituents.

In a bizarre way, the constituent vs party issue is moot. The reason for this is that congressional districts are so heavily gerrymandered that CD's aren't really that diverse--almost all congressional elections aren't very close. When the typical representative gets reelected by 65, 70, 80+% of the vote, you can be sure that the representative is probably of like mind politically to the overwhelming majority of his or her constituents.

Hmmm. While I recognize what you're talking about, I disagree with that last statement, at least.

There are huge institutional factors that keep many congressional races from even being meaningfully contested. Yes, the district boundaries are frequently designed to be "safe" for the incumbent of either party. But in the typical race, what that means is that a well-organized and well-funded effort by the opposing party would result in, say, a 55%-45% win for the incumbent. Therefore, what we tend to see is the opposition party basically writes off that district as being "lost" and focuses its funding, talent, and effort elsewhere. The result? Most incumbents don't even face "serious" challengers, and end up being re-elected by the sort of margins you describe above.

An incumbent congressman who gets 75% of the vote in his re-election bid does not necessarily have the strongideological support of 75% of his constituents. There are many institutional advantages of being an incumbent, and in many cases they tend to deter competition before it even gets a chance to take hold.

Senators might actually work for at least three weeks out of their six-year term, while Reps are working on their next re-election campaign a day after getting elected.

I see members of the House as being much likely to be completely and totally insane. See DeLay, Tom or Kucinich, Dennis.

That would probably be the product of the gerrymandered districts. If a district is less diverse philosophically, the crazier ones have a better chance of getting elected (either that or everyone in the district is equally as crazy as the person representing them). I can understand some districts being made to suit some incumbents or whatnot, but I feel as though gerrymandering the districts as they have become have generally created a polarized House where there are few moderates, many liberals or conservatives, and a fair number of loons on both sides.