The Advantages Of Limiting The Abuse Of Power Of Congress

The one main advantage of the bicameral legislative structure of this country is that limits the abuse of power of Congress. No one group or class in the U.S. can dictate the terms or make legislature that will benefit themselves at the expense of others. Unreasonable demands of the Senate can be blocked by the Representatives and in turn the Senate can kill a piece of unjust legislation passed by the Representatives. The prevention of unfair laws and legislature is a clear advantage. One difficulty of this bicameralism is that it is incredibly hard to enact change because both the House and the Senate need to agree on something for it to become law. If no census can be reached, then the piece of legislation enters a perpetual cycle of revision
and disagreement until it is put on the back burner and, eventually, forgotten about. This check that forces the Senate and the House to agree on a law is effective at making sure that only laws that are beneficial, well-executed, and important are passed while it also makes change and the likelihood of getting a law passed a lot lower.

Three differences between the chambers include seat apportionment, term length, and the filibuster.
First, seat apportionment. In the Senate, there are twos seats for each state, giving us a total of 100 Senators, each will equal representation. In the Senate, each state carries the same amount of weight when it comes to making legislative decisions, thus making sure that smaller states always have a say in the matter. In the House, the number of seats that each state has is proportional to that state's population, leading to larger states have more representation. This leads to larger states like California and Texas pulling more weight for laws that benefit their own states rather than what is good for everyone. This also leads to smaller states not having much of a say since they, relatively speaking, don't speak much for the other states. Term length also plays a role in how the two bodies differ in function. House Representatives have terms that last for 2 years. This leads to Representatives sticking more strictly to what the people they are representing want; after all, 2 years is a rather short amount of time when you compare it to other term lengths. This leads to Representatives putting forth and voting for legislature that will directly benefit their district so that they have something to show their constituents in order to get re-elected. Meanwhile, Senators have terms that last for 6 years and they aren't voted in by an individual district. This allows Senators
to consider what must be done for the state as a whole and spend less time worrying about re-election. They could vote for a mostly-good but non-favorable piece of legislature three years in and then shirt their focus to passing legislature that their constituents would approve of in order to win re-election. Finally, the filibuster. The House lacks the filibuster due to the large large amount of members and the stricter formality of the House of Representatives. The Senate, which is slightly more informal and has less than one-fourth the amount of members of the House, does allow for the filibuster. The filibuster functions as one of the minority party's best defense and plot for time against the majority party. The filibuster can drag out debates and secure time for compromises to be reached and negotiations to be made.

While it is true that the framers intended to make a system that could not enact important decisions in a rash matter without consideration of the minority party, this deadlock is likely not what they intended. Congress hasn't made many rash decisions simply due to the fact that there haven't been many decisions in the first place. The framers intended for change to be slow, but it is doubtful that they wanted the complete deadlock that we have right now. The framers wanted to make sure that the people approved of the decisions made by Congress in order to prevent tyranny, that much is true. But with the nation in such a polarized environment, very little can be done. There are also other things that the framers wouldn't have intended to happen, such as rules like the nuclear option which give the majority party a lot more power of the minority party. So overall, Congress does not function the way that the framers intended.

If I were a member of one of the two bodies of Congress, then I would likely embrace the politico model.
It is the job or a member of Congress to represent their people, that much is true, and I would act accordingly so long as others aren't being harmed by my decisions. I would do everything in my power to carry out the will of my constituents so long as it aligned with my own moral compass and conscience. I would not be able pass legislature that I know would directly harm others, no matter how much the people I represent would want it. Otherwise, though, I would seek to stay in line with the desires of my constituents, even if I don't agree with it on a political
basis.

If I were in the House, I would act more as a delegate than as a trustee. Members of the House have an expectation of always going along with their constituents and failing to do so typically leads to that Representative losing re-election. You have two years to get your constituents to re-elect you and making your own decisions that contradict theirs is a sure-fire way of getting voted out. Acting as a delegate with no free will isn't most people's idea of a good use of time, but it pays the bills and keeps you in office. Being a member of the Senate, on the other hand, allows for members to have some more autonomy and wiggle room, thus encouraging members to act more as a trustee instead of a delegate. You have more of a choice on who to align yourself with since you do not have one, sole district that is in charge of your re-election. you also have a longer term, which means more time to get back on the good side of constituents if you make a decision that you agree with but your state may not. You could still act as a delegate but most people would likely take the chance to act more on their own volition, though still aligning with your constituents, instead of acting as a mindless representative whose only job is to enact what their constituents want.