Reference no: EM133456528

Question: The framers of the Constitution designed the Senate to filter the output of the "sometimes hasty" House. Do you think this was a wise idea? Why or why not? Some things to think about: In 2018, Democratic Senate candidates won nearly *18 million more votes* than Republican candidates, but Republicans added 2 seats to their majority. If you combine the populations of the 14 least populous states plus DC and territories, you get about 18 million, but taken as separate states those 14 states people have 28 senators between them. Is it the mark of a healthy democracy when one party can earn 18 million more votes and see a decrease in seats? When Nebraska voted to change from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral one, *these are some of the arguments that prevailed.* Do you find them convincing? Any students here from Nebraska care to give their perspective? The Virginia Plan , proposed by the chief architect of the Constitution James Madison, would have still included a Senate, but it would also have had a number of seats that was proportional to the state's population (and were essentially limited to a single term). Now that we have more than 230 years of the Great Compromise, what do you think the pros & cons would have been if the Constitutional Congress had adopted Madison's Virginia Plan instead? How do you feel about a senator's ability to filibuster legislation? Can you think of examples when the Senate has been the more hasty chamber? For example, wasn't the 30-day confirmation of Justice Barrett as hasty as anything one might expect from the House? * 18 million more votes