Why do U.S. representatives serve shorter terms than U.S. senators?

Why this is the answer

The House was designed to be the chamber that stays closest to the people, and short terms are how the Constitution makes that happen. A representative faces the voters every two years, so a member who loses touch with the district does not wait long for the next election. Senators, with six-year terms, were given more distance from the swings of the moment. USCIS reduces the reason to one official answer: to more closely follow public opinion. The argument was made in public while the Constitution was being debated. Federalist No. 52 says the House in particular should have an immediate dependence on the people and share their feelings, and that frequent elections are the only reliable way to secure that. The essay looks at the House of Commons in Great Britain, where the time between elections had been stretched from three years to seven, and concludes that two-year terms could not possibly be dangerous to the people's hold over their representatives. Federalist No. 57 adds that frequent elections keep members aware that their power is temporary and that the way they use it will soon be reviewed. The two chambers were meant to work as a pair. The 2008 study lessons describe the six-year Senate term as protection from public opinion and the two-year House term as a way to follow it more closely. Since a bill needs a majority in both, a proposal has to win over a chamber that answers to voters quickly and one that answers to them slowly. You may hear other wording in study groups, such as "so they stay in touch with voters." The official phrase is the safer reply, because USCIS encourages applicants to use the answers on its list. The common error is giving a fact instead of a reason, such as "because the House has more members." The question asks why, and the answer is about public opinion.