The prestige of the two chambers

                Following on from the previous post, it must be noted that members of the upper chamber hold a greater level of prestige than their counterparts in the House. There are several points one could put forward to support this argument. Firstly, members of the Senate represent an entire state. In contrast, a member of the House may be one of several within that particular state (particularly larger states such as California and Texas). Secondly, Senators serve a longer term and are by definition one of a hundred. It must also be noted that a member of the Senate is more likely to chair a committee (or a sub-committee) or hold some leadership post than a member of the lower chamber.  

                Members of the Senate also hold a greater level of name recognition than members of the House. Indeed, some members of the Senate have a nationwide profile like John McCain and Harry Reid. The Senate also holds the more significant exclusive powers. However, the clinching argument must be that the Senate is seen as a recruiting ground for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. For instance, the Democrats have nominated a Senator or ex-Senator as their vice-presidential candidate in fifteen out of the last sixteen elections. It is hardly a coincidence that members of the House will frequently seek election to the Senate (as in the recent case of Tammy Baldwin and Jeff Flake).

                Before we leave the question of which chamber is the more prestigious, it should be noted that both chambers have equal powers over the passage of legislation and constitutional amendments. Members also receive equal salaries. However, no-one could seriously claim that the House is more prestigious than the Senate. Even the character of debate within the upper chamber is often of a higher quality than the more partisan lower chamber; although the tactic of filibustering can negate this point on those occasions when it is used.