Yes. So long as we take gerrymandering out of the equation (which would be difficult because it'd presume congressmen wouldn't have their own agenda), the Senate/House split is, in my point of view, a way to establish a cultural standard. If you have everything driven by popular vote, then it becomes more easily to have a "tyranny of the majority" where those in excessively concentrated areas could drain funds, projects, and policies, away from those who have less. Of course, one could argue in a utilitarian fashion: That the job of the government is to facilitate the wants and needs of the greatest amount of people possible, but that leaves fringe groups without popular representation out adrift without a lifeline.
Having the Senate and House balance each other I've always thought was a good idea from the founders to make sure that the *popular* opinion is heard (i.e. in the house) and the cultural, regional voices needs are heard (in the Senate) and given equal weight. The "popular" vote is doubly heard in the office of the President in a way, since the electoral college allows us to indirectly influence the outcome, so, as vexrm said, it's not perfect but would be hard to get the same effect otherwise without going too far the other way.
Now what I *would* change about the Senate is the length of terms. It gets people too cushy in those positions and they start losing more and more the voice even of their constituency. Which, if you followed my argument thus far, isn't what I agree with the Senate to be representing. How exactly I'd change it? I'm not entirely sure. Term limits? 6 years staggers things out a bit and has more old-boy, seasoned mentality to it. 2 years with more lenient term limits providing they are doing a proper job maybe? It's hard to tell.
no subject
Having the Senate and House balance each other I've always thought was a good idea from the founders to make sure that the *popular* opinion is heard (i.e. in the house) and the cultural, regional voices needs are heard (in the Senate) and given equal weight. The "popular" vote is doubly heard in the office of the President in a way, since the electoral college allows us to indirectly influence the outcome, so, as
Now what I *would* change about the Senate is the length of terms. It gets people too cushy in those positions and they start losing more and more the voice even of their constituency. Which, if you followed my argument thus far, isn't what I agree with the Senate to be representing. How exactly I'd change it? I'm not entirely sure. Term limits? 6 years staggers things out a bit and has more old-boy, seasoned mentality to it. 2 years with more lenient term limits providing they are doing a proper job maybe? It's hard to tell.