political research-senators

[kvnf]

I've done a little political research this evening that I thought I'd share with y'all. I was curious as to how many states had two senators of the same party and how many didn't. I was curious, of the ones that did, were more of them two Democrats or two Republicans. Then, I wanted to compare the state populations of all the states that have two Democratic senators with all the states that have two Republican senators. Interest results...here they are:

States with two Republican Senators: 19
States with two Democratic Senators: 17
States with one of each party: 13

Total Population of States with two Democrats:
117,420,772
Total Population of States with two Republicans:
87,145,127

The above information is interesting because it exposes one of the fundamental problems with our democracy...unproportional representation. Of States with same-party senators, 87 million Republicans get 38 senators and 117 million Democrats get 34 senators: no fair! But that's the Senate, which was a compromise for small states to ensure that they'd have power. (note; the above is a generalization, I know, but I don't have time to look up voter-registration and all that, however, I'm assuming it's fairly uniform and that even considering variation in turnout democrats are under-represented)

Another piece of interesting information...VERY interesting, actually: There are six states that each currently have two Democratic senators yet voted for Bush in 2000. They are Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia. I was really suprised to learn that North and South Dakota each have two Democratic senators...now, I wonder why people in those states vote one way for senators and another for president. One answer might be that a very different set of people vote in each type of election. Another answer might be that people in those states like Democrats for state issues and Republicans for national issues (I think the last time N. and S. Dakota voted for a Democratic President was for Johnson in 1964...yeah, that's right, just checked). It may be a combination of those two....I don't know, but we need to figure out how to get those people to vote D come the presidential election...

In case you were curious, I researched the counter-example, as well; States that currently have two Republican senators that voted for Gore in 2000. There are only two: Maine and Pennsylvania.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[daa]

1. Here is Georgia

we have one bubba and one asshole hillbilly.

[ps1074]

2. I think the picture in the House is similar

If you count all the votes casted for democrats and republicans - the Dem side has more votes and actually less representatives.

[freetobegay]

3. Actually Florida should be for Gore!

Sorry, I just refuse to let it go down in history without a fight!

[phoebe]

4. any House statistics?

n/t

[ithacan]

5. You think that's bad, look at this:

These calculations were done in response to a declaration by Sen. Trent Lott back in 2001 that Republican control of the Senate reflected the will of the American people:

In the US Senate elections of 1996, 1998 and 2000 here's how the total vote broke down:

In those three elections,

All Democratic candidates for US Senate received a total of 87,786,021 votes

All Republican candidates for US Senate received a total of 86,722,594 votes*

In percentages of the totals for Dems + Reps:

Dem candidates received 50.3 percent of the total votes

Rep candidates received 49.7 percent of the total votes.

Hmm.... It seems pretty clear to me what the majority of Americans who voted in those Senate elections said they wanted Democrats in charge...

If we look at the numbers of votes received by those who were serving in the Senate from 2001 to 2003, the results are even more striking:

The Democrats who were serving in that session of Congress in the US Senate received a total of 58,377,936 votes
The Republicans who were serving in that session of Congress in the US Senate received a total of 43,045,011 votes*

Let's see, that means that of the total, Democratic Senators received 57.6 percent, while Repubs got 42.6 percent.

In the elections in November 2000:

the Democrats who were elected to the Senate in the 2000 elections received the votes of 27.4 million voters;

the Republicans who were elected in 2000 received the votes of only 16.7 million voters.

In other words: Dems got 62.1 percent, Reps only 37.9 percent of those votes that are directly represented in the Senate (the breakdown by total votes cast for all Dem candidates and all Repub candidates in 2000 Senate races is Dems 50.3 percent, Repubs 49.7 percent).

Of course, the Senate is representative not of voters, but rather of States. Since the voters of the State of Vermont clearly approve of Sen. Jeffords despite his moderate track record, his switch to Independent status did nothing to change that fact, especially since he was elected with an overwhelming majority of the vote--66 percent--in a heavily Democratic state. In fact, by shifting control of the Senate to the Democrats Jeffords was more accurately reflecting the interest of his state, Vermont, as well as the American public as a whole (as shown above).

A Democratic-controlled Senate is more reflective of the American people than is the Republican-controlled Senate.

Trent Lott should know better than to invoke the will of the "majority of the American people" when talking about the Senate...
Especially given the 2000 presidential selection!!

* (this includes the 188,070 votes received by Jim Jeffords in the 2000 election)
** figures based on Senate election results information from Federal Election Commission web site and web site of Libertarian Party

[kvnf]

6. wow

Startling numbers, indeed. I don't like our system of voting in this country at all. All this demonstrates how flawed it is, how many people don't get a voice...it really sucks.

[Pepperbelly]

7. i kinda disagree ...

the founders prudently included the Senate with its six-year terms to be more insulated from popular opinion and even with the amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, the same six-year terms still make the Senate a slower, more deliberative body with ka-zillions of procedural affectations that assure that little is steam-rolled through.

I think that's a good idea.

[ithacan]

8. six year terms, okay, but

for Wyoming to have the same representation as California or New York is not okay, it is very antidemocratic, and all the blather about states rights does not change it.