Introduction
America’s diverse social composition and difficulty in realizing independence explain its current democratic development. Unlike many other states, the U.S. government comes from the desire for a friendly authority that remains underneath the public’s requirements. The country’s administrative structure is developed to allow the nation to regulate the legislation through the operation of Congress, which contains the House of Representatives and the Senate (Walker, 2018). The latter is the chief law-making body based on its advice and consent provision roles. This paper aims to discuss the Senate’s features, its insulation from external political forces, and its influence on national policymaking. Indeed, parties seeking to influence American laws can do that by manipulating the Senators, and protection of this governmental body is essential. This paper argues that the changes in the majority party should not influence the law-making practices in Senate and that its decision-making processes are different from the House of Representatives due to higher autonomy.
The House of Representatives and the Senate
Senate members’ elections significantly insulate the house from opinionated influences, such as the majority political party changes. America currently uses a system of electing senators different from before 1913 (Theobald, 2021). Initially, the nation’s constitution gave state legislators the responsibility to elect senators. The model worked on the belief that state representatives embodied the public, and giving them a chance to choose senators implied having the masses elect the leaders. Using the earlier mechanism directly gave the popular political party the power to favor its contestants, thus influencing the higher house’s deliberations (Walker, 2018). The matter led to further battles as various groups conflicted over the Senate’s control. Therefore, having senators elected by the masses protects the house from corrupt individuals who use the money to buy sponsorship.
Senators’ direct elections prevent deadlocks and lack of representation due to conflicts. According to Walker (2018), external forces’ influence on the senate elections caused deadlocks between the 1850s and 1900s in more than 20 states. Theobald (2021) provides Delaware’s 1899’s case, where the state failed to get a senate representative for four years due to political parties’ fights. The scholars blame the then government and corrupt special interest groups for the problem in Delaware and other states facing a similar challenge. However, the senator election issue in the U.S. ended in 1913 after enacting the 17th Amendment, giving the electorate the right to elect two senators per state directly. Consequently, senators in the U.S. campaign like any other politician, with the electorate generally electing them based on the individual’s potential instead of the political party’s affiliation. Therefore, the transformation from state legislatures’ election of senators to the electorate’s direct involvement cushions the powerful house from the excessive influence of political parties.
The Senate’s staggered terms make it almost impossible for the popular political party to influence its composition and operations. Indeed, only one-third of the chamber changes every two years, making the low influence of popular moods on Senators’ policymaking choices. The structure is different from the House of Representatives, where most presiding officers go through the election in two years. Senators stay in their seats for six years, and this tenure makes the house independent, strong, and nonpartisan. Binder (2015) purports that America’s system of electing Senators comes from the fear of a tyrant and aristocratic upper legislative house cloistered by popular attitude. Characteristically, about one-third of the Senate membership faces reelection every two years, promoting continuity in the Senate (Walker, 2018). The aspect makes the house insusceptible from the federal government, which lacks the power to influence Senators. The Senate is insulated from big changes in the popular mood, and it is essential for helping the United States maintain strong legislation.
Staggered terms allow the Senate to provide stable leadership even during national uncertainties resulting from primary elections involving the President and the lower house members. Senators generally carry more authority relative to the individual affiliate of the House of Representatives (Passarelli, 2020). The former party (Senator) represents a whole state’s interests, while the latter exemplifies a single district’s welfare (Theobald, 2021). Additionally, Senators’ smaller numbers and greater coverage give them a superior megaphone to cause attention to a specific subject (Hacker et al., 2022). Therefore, the limitation of having Senators elected at the same time as members of parliament and the President would expose the house to immeasurable external influences through corruption and lobbying activities. For instance, the mistake would allow the mainstream party to have the popular members in the lower and upper houses, thus disrupting the Senate’s immunity.
Another limitation of the Senate’s current conditions is that it is not insulated from the elections’ nationalization developed throughout the last decade. Indeed, politics exert greater influence over down-ballot contests, promoting the Senators who would persist on the specific needs of their party rather than making evaluated decisions (Sievert & McKee, 2019). Furthermore, strict Senate commissions are developed to look for specialized knowledge to back their arguments before delivering recommendations to the Senate (Squellati, 2018). It may result in disadvantages, such as lobbying for specific industries’ interests without considering the national opinion on the subject. For example, Senators are not insulated from the research results for changing nutrition regulations, yet specific product manufacturers might fund these studies with business interest in passing a new law.
Senate policymaking is different from the House of Representatives because of the former’s higher autonomy. Indeed, Senators can pass new legislation faster and in a more debating manner; however, the filibuster ability can become a serious barrier for a truly important policy to be established. The intentional prolonging of discussion and delay for voting is possible in the Senate because unless the two-thirds majority is agreed, the members can keep arguing without any concrete action. In contrast, the House of Representatives is limited in time for discussing the bills because of their quantity, and 218 of 435 votes occur to pass a law; it is forwarded to the Senate (Hacker et al., 2022). The Senate has more significant decision-making power regarding the legislation because, without their votes, a bill will not reach the conference committee.
The ‘motion to proceed’ element demands consensus from a specific number of senators for discussion to proceed. The requirement stresses that 60% of the Senators must agree to deliberate a bill by voting on a ‘motion to proceed’ for it to be debated (Theobald, 2021). Lastly, the filibuster element allows even a single senator to disrupt unfavorable legislation by presenting an extraneous issue that makes it hard for the house to proceed (Binder, 2015). The features make the Senate a complex body where laws pass based on facts and genuine consensus, instead of a single party’s influence as in the House of Representatives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Senate is a unique force that safeguards America’s democracy and legal stability. The house’s primary roles are to give counsel and consent or oppose the House of Representatives and the President’s missions. Consequently, the Senate requires significant immunity from forces such as the majority political assembly and other influential groups to dispense its responsibilities appropriately. Features like staggered terms, direct elections, committees, commission membership restrictions, filibusters, and the ‘motion to proceed’ protect the upper house from external stimulus.
References
Battaglini, M., & Patacchini, E. (2019). Social networks in policymaking. Annual Review of Economics, 11, 473-494. Web.
Binder, S. (2015). The dysfunctional Congress.Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 85-101. Web.
Cox, G.W. & McCubbins, M.D. (2005). Setting the agenda. Cambridge University Press
Croci, E. (2018). The Board of directors: Corporate governance and the effect on firm value. Springer Nature.
Hacker, J. S., Hertel-Fernandez, A., Pierson, P., & Thelen, K. (2022). The American political economy: Markets, power, and the metapolitics of U.S. economic governance.Annual Review of Political Science, 25. Web.
Passarelli, G. (2020). The presidential party: A theoretical framework for comparative analysis. Political Studies Review, 18(1), 87-107. Web.
Sievert, J., & McKee, S. C. (2019). Nationalization in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections. American Politics Research, 47(5), 1055-1080. Web.
Squellati, R. (2018). A policy apprenticeship in the office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 36(1), 219-228. Web.
Theobald, R. (2021). The 2020 vote and beyond: Old situations, new complications.Political Geography, 102501, 1-3. Web.
Walker, C. J. (2018). Restoring Congress’s role in the modern administrative state. Michigan Law Review, 116(6), 1101-1121. Web.