> those 2 senators are not supposed to represent the people of those states, they represent the states themselves
They were, but not are. They are now elected by popular vote and the citizens clearly expect the senators to represent them. Few people know this history and fewer care. Most are in the crowd always looking for another argument against freedom and democracy.
> The fact we use an electoral college or count senators and house reps equally is separate and after the fact, we don't have to do it that way
It's in the Constitution just like the Senators, so we do have to do it. We can change anything, of course. We can get rid of both branches and go with a parliamentary system.
> We see a similar hierarchy in the order laws are passed. The people get a law proposed via the House, once it passes it goes onto "state review" in the Senate, and finally "Federal" review by signing of the president.
Legislation originates also in the Senate, and of course the president authors much of it (wherever it's interoduced). Only a few things are required to officially start in the House.
Still, that's an interesting way to look at it. But I follow politics and federal government closely, I read lots of history, and read at a sophisticted level, and I've never heard that. Maybe that was an idea back in the 18th century?
I think the history shows the intent though, as like you say, the state legislature elected their federal senate representatives up until 1913. I do agree things are different now and expectations might have changed.
> Legislation originates also in the Senate, and of course the president authors much of it (wherever it's interoduced). Only a few things are required to officially start in the House.
The only thing that must start in the House is anything related to raising revenue. The fact the senate or house can start bills does support my perspective though - the house can start bills for the people, the senate for the state itself.
They were, but not are. They are now elected by popular vote and the citizens clearly expect the senators to represent them. Few people know this history and fewer care. Most are in the crowd always looking for another argument against freedom and democracy.
> The fact we use an electoral college or count senators and house reps equally is separate and after the fact, we don't have to do it that way
It's in the Constitution just like the Senators, so we do have to do it. We can change anything, of course. We can get rid of both branches and go with a parliamentary system.
> We see a similar hierarchy in the order laws are passed. The people get a law proposed via the House, once it passes it goes onto "state review" in the Senate, and finally "Federal" review by signing of the president.
Legislation originates also in the Senate, and of course the president authors much of it (wherever it's interoduced). Only a few things are required to officially start in the House.
Still, that's an interesting way to look at it. But I follow politics and federal government closely, I read lots of history, and read at a sophisticted level, and I've never heard that. Maybe that was an idea back in the 18th century?