The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans

[Ichingcarpenter]

On Tuesday, 33 US senators elected in November will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden — including 12 who are new to the chamber. The class includes 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats, a big reason why the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate overall.

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states/in/5654656

I love how democracy works.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. How does gerrymandering affect Senate seats? n/t

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

16. Wyoming gets 2 seats and California gets 2 seats

I hate the Senate

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. That's not gerrymandering n/t

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

21. not in name but in fact

Arbitrary lines that produce lopsided outcomes by design.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. Oh, OK

So I guess we should eliminate all state boundaries.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

23. I'd whack the Senate

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Then you believe

that the interests of say, California as a whole, are no different than the interests of say, Alabama as a whole?

Because if you "whack" the Senate, you have taken any way for the state-wide interests of any state to be represented.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

28. Every state has to deal with that. California is home to "Texans" and "Oklahomans"

The majority makes the decisions for the minority, and the minority bitches and moans. This occurs on both the national and state level. In my world, people > sheep, so heads of people count more than heads of sheep.

[Ken Burch]

141. No...just make the Senate half the size of the House

And eliminate the artificial 435 seat-limit on the size of the House itself(a limit imposed in 1920, when the population of this country was, IIRC, a third of what it is now.

With the 435-seat limit, the House ceased to truly offer "representation by population", and has led to a massive under-representation of large states, like Illinois and New York, whose population hasn't grown as fast as that of some small states.

There is no longer any reason to make the Senate a chamber in which small states get disproportionate influence, because there are no longer clear differences in the interests of small states compared to large states.

[amandabeech]

143. The 435 seats in the House are apportioned among the states by population after every census.

Although the number of seats has remained the same, states gain and lose seats. My home state, Michigan, has lost at least a seat in every census since about 1980, as have many of the industrial states in the north and midwest.

Texas, Florida, California, and the rest of the sun belt have been gaining seats--Florida at an astonishing rate. But no matter what happens, each state gets two senators.

[Ken Burch]

144. Which is all tied to the morally-discredited "three-fifths" compromise

And the obsession with appeasing small(mainly at that time Southern slave-owning)states.

Representation by population is supposed to mean representation by population. Your state shouldn't lose representation unless its population size actually declines.

[DebJ]

139. and DC gets NONE, even though

I believe their population has exceeded that of Wyoming, South Dakota, etc.

[madinmaryland]

3. Not gerrymandering. That does not exist in the Senate. Senators are elected by popular

vote in each state.

[panader0]

5. My mistake oops

[nolabels]

65. Senators are installed after large sums of money are alocatted towards them

Without money, how Senators are selected would be much more ceremonial and lot less prostitutional

[First Speaker]

4. America's version of the Parliamentary Rotten Boroughs

[hfojvt]

6. it's certainly not gerrymandering

the Senators have to win the whole state.

In the past this has favored the Democrats. For example when the Dakotas had 4 Democratic Senators and Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island and New Hampshire had 8 Democratic Senators.

If the states were more evenly balanced, then the Senate would look more like the House where each CD is about the same size, except the ones in the seven or eight smallest states.

And we are not doing that well in the House, are we?

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Where did I say Gerrymandering?

The senate no matter how you cut it is undemocratic.

The house is also undemocratic with gerrymandering, democrats won by more than a million votes in the house elections.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. I guess

that we should just hold a nationwide election, and whichever party wins the most votes will get to have all of the House and Senate seats.

just in case it's needed.

[rogerashton]

32. Why sarcasm?

Federalism was not commanded by any God.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. I'm not in favor of one party rule

by any party; YMMV.

[rogerashton]

63. And what does that have to do with this thread? eom

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. Seriously? n/t

[rogerashton]

66. I thought this thread was about minority rule --

which is what we have. Some of us, being small-d democrats, would prefer majority rule. Rereading your earlier post, I see that it is a bit worse than I thought. You seem to have set up "one party rule" as a strawman alternative to the minority rule that we now have. Now, I would frankly have no problem with one-party rule if that party were consistently chosen, in open contested elections, by a majority of the population. And that has sometimes happened, though it is pretty uncommon since universal suffrage became the rule. The alternative proposed by some of the other posts is a parliamentary system in a unitary American republic. In practice most of those systems have many parties, rule by coalition, and it is relatively much easier to organize a new party to challenge the existing ones. Yes, it has problems -- see e.g. Belgium! -- but it is very, very far from "one-party rule." So would you favor a parliamentary system for our republic?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

69. Perhaps you should take a second to re-read the exchange

I said that maybe we should just do a nationwide vote and whichever party gets the most votes across the country would get all House and Senate seats, i.e., one party rule. I meant that as sarcasm, as I obviously would not be in favor of that.

When you asked why I would say that as sarcasm, I took that to mean that you think that would be a fine idea.

Sorry, but that would be one party rule, all the time, and I'm against that, regardless of which party would benefit.

And no, I would not favor a parliamentary system - I'm fine with our current bicameral system.

[rogerashton]

70. So you are happy with the minority rule that the op pointed out?

And that minority rule serves the 1% that you say, by self-identification, that you are sick of. Maybe you need to rethink something.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

77. We are not under minority rule

The OP's ridiculous statistics aside.

[rogerashton]

115. You disagree with the OP, me, and the facts. eom

[SickOfTheOnePct]

116. Your "facts" are questionable

So yes, I disagree with you.

[villager]

79. Then you must not really be all that sick of the one percent.

n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

81. Right...

...because anyone that favors the form of government as laid out in the Constitution must necessarily be a fan of the 1%.

Again, just in case it's needed

[villager]

82. Well, it's a good thing that that laid-out government eventually gave slaves "personhood"

...and allowed women to vote, eh?

One might also recall Jefferson's warnings against corporations.

Pretty sure their intention was not to have millions and millions of citizens' voices go unheeded, however, or to endure perpetual minority rule.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

83. Some citizens votes have always gone unheeded

Anyone that votes for the losing candidate is having his or her vote unheeded. In elections, someone wins and someone loses...this is not a new concept.

But the idea that voters in one state should have a say in the House or Senate representation of voters in another state is ludicrous.

[villager]

84. It's interesting how vociferously you defend the rule of the one percent

What's "ludicrous" is how blatantly disproportionate our representation has become: Both the Senate and House "majorities" actually represent only a minority of voters, which benefits the one percent.

[former9thward]

102. The House represents a majority who voted.

The Senate does not. When you count the ones who did not vote it will always be a 'minority' representation.

[villager]

103. Actually, no. Due to gerrymandering, Democrats received more House votes

...even though Republicans have managed to secure more "districts."

[former9thward]

109. No, not this year.

Rs got about 4.5 million more votes.

R - 39,870,855

D - 35,431,518

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

[villager]

111. But it happens in years when D's get millions more votes, as well

that's the problem.

Also this past year, due to the cycle, the electorate was the most mismatched it's been with the populace at large since one of the 1940's elections, I believe... I had posted that analysis here around election time....

[branford]

119. No, it was a necessary and enlightened compromise that helped form the union.

Simply, in our society, states have rights, and this is reflected by, among other things, by the Senate. We are the "United States of America" for a reason.

It ensures that the political independence of states like Vermont, Rhode Island and Wyoming are not obliterated by the likes of New Jersey, New York, California and Texas.

If anyone believes such a system is unjust or needs improving, they are free to propose a constitutional amendment that changes the very nature of our government and takes power away from many states. Good luck with that.

[JDPriestly]

125. Alternatively, we could have proportional representation in the Senate.

So if 40% of the votes go to Republicans, then the Republicans decide amongst themselves which of their candidates should go to the Senate and be part of their caucus.

That's not the way we are organized, but it could work.

Our current system results in a Senate that does not represent the majority will of the American people. I live in California. My vote for the Senate is worth a tiny fraction of the vote of a voter in Wyoming. Most of the heavily populated states are fairly liberal. The exception is Texas. California and New York are liberal. Illinois is fairly liberal.

So we get a bunch of conservative nuts in the Senate. They certainly don't represent the huge numbers of people who live in California, New York and Illinois. But that is our system for better or worse.

[hfojvt]

60. Where did I say that you said gerrymandering

However I had already read the first reply.

My point being that in the past it has been undemocratic in OUR favor.

The house, at least by size, IS democratic.

I still think gerrymandering is an excuse. If we can win races in conservative states like SD, then why not also win them in conservative districts? Depending on how the million votes was distributed, then we could have come out ahead, but maybe not.

[former9thward]

100. Not this year.

The Dems have won more votes in the House but fewer seats in 2012 but not in 2014.

R - 39,870,855

D - 35,431,518

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. And for the umpty millionth time

So what? Senators are there to represent each state as a whole, while the House is there to represent citizens at a more individualized level.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Yet you are sick of the one pct.

irony

[pnwmom]

54. So what? Once again, we see how people in small states have a disproportionate

amount of electoral power.

[OnionPatch]

86. We know how it's set up and why.

That doesn't mean it's a good and fair thing. The 584,153 people in Wyoming have as much power to affect the direction of our country as the nearly 39 million people of California. That's blatantly un-democratic regardless of the reasons and I think we have a right to say so.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. Of course you have a right to say so

Did someone say you didn't?

[OnionPatch]

113. It just seems to me like

when people bring up how unfair it is theyre treated like they're being unreasonable.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

114. If you feel you're being treated unfairly

then it's not unreasonable to bring it up.

However, continuously complaining about it as some do (not you in particular) when there isn't anything that can be done about it just seems pointless to me.

[thucythucy]

127. Bringing up the fact that the Senate actually represents

a minority of voters will however help confront the GOP talking point that they now have a "mandate" to do the things they're preparing to do, such as gut environmental regulations, cut funding for everything except the MIC, etc. etc.

It never hurts to point out the facts, IMHO.

[Ramses]

142. Youre name is revealing

Please proceed how we should shut up and accept it.

Tell us all off like you want to

[SickOfTheOnePct]

145. What an odd post

Why would I tell you to shut up an accept it? If you want to complain, complain. It's just a waste of time, because the only way to change it is by changing the Constitution, and that isn't going to happen.

[onenote]

10. So would you solve this by forced relocation of people so every state has the same population?

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Me? I would get rid of the Senate

and use a parliamentary system with no gerrymandering.

But that an't gonna happen.

20 million is a lot to think about.

[mountain grammy]

40. Me too. Maybe we'll have that someday

after this mess we have now completely breaks down..

[branford]

121. Parliamentary systems are hardly free of strife and inefficiency,

and are often very undemocratic and unrepresentative due to small party demands in coalition governments.

A quick perusal of many European elections and governments really demonstrates that our system is really not so bad.

[mountain grammy]

122. Our system would probably work fine without the money and corruption..

but right now, it's not working very well.

[branford]

123. Humans are selfish and imperfect,

and therefore any system of government, most particularly democracies, will be ideal.

We just have to do our best.

[maddiemom]

149. Interesting idea. Sadly we never see any much needed governmental changes on the national level.

We can't even go to a popular vote for POTUS. Now I'll sit back and let anyone who cares to let me know that my "negative attitude" is "defeatist." I've done as much as I could to be active in politics over the years---ever since I was a fifteen year old "Kennedy Girl" locally in 1960. I've never seen such a resistance (more like a shrug) to doing anything about the ridiculous gridlock and partisan politics now rampant, at the national level, especially. Yet people have jumped all over me at times as out of touch for suggesting we need a few people like LBJ (I didn't like him at the time ) to get things moving.

[hughee99]

14. Maybe we could redraw all state boarders to achieve the same effect

and just create a "national gerrymander".

[Vattel]

15. I think Wyoming, Idaho and Montana should be one state, and North and South Dakota should be one,

and Kansas and Oklahoma should be one. That would help make things fairer.

[gladium et scutum]

38. Maybe California should be

4 or 5 states

[First Speaker]

20. Give all 50 states one senator, and apportion the rest according to the population at large...

...basically, repeal the Great Compromise thru which the Constitution was passed in the first place. It's long overdue. Two senators per state is an anachronism. I know it won't happen--making our Constitution reasonable will never happen--but that's what I'd do, if I could.

[Fred Sanders]

29. ^^^^^^representation according to population^^^^^^^

[Indydem]

101. We have that.

It's called the House of Representatives.

[Fred Sanders]

107. No, we do not, that is representation according to gerrymandering.

[MohRokTah]

12. This was due to the Great Compromise.

States gained equal representation in the Senate, thus HUGE California has as much power as teensy Wyoming.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. which gave slave owning states

an equal say........ it had nothing to do with California or Wyoming.


The Senate’s “small and unequal” representation discriminates not only on the basis of wealth, sex, and age but also on the basis of race and religion. James Madison recognized in 1787 that an equal vote for each state in the Senate did not properly distinguish states with predominantly white populations from those with large African-American slave populations (whose numbers were counted, though at 60 percent, in apportioning seats for the House of Representatives). He could make a similar observation today. Today, African Americans and Hispanics make up only 11 percent of the population in the twenty-six smallest states constituting a majority in the U.S. Senate, though they are 30 percent of the population in the nine largest states, holding a majority of the people. Similarly, Catholics are only 16 percent and Jews less than 1 percent in the smallest states with a majority in the U.S. Senate, but they are 28 percent and more than 3 percent, respectively, of the largest states with a majority of the people. For Muslims, Asian Americans, the poor, and virtually every other group and category of voter, there may be important differences between the demographics of the smallest states and those of the largest states or of the average state or of the median state, so that an equal vote for every state in the Senate is not only increasingly undemocratic. It is increasingly unrepresentative as well.

The statewide election of senators (as opposed to the election of representatives by small congressional voting districts) works a further discrimination against minorities, denying them the ability to elect “one of their own” and thereby to have a voice in Senate debate. Even if blacks, for example, make up more than a third of a state’s population (as they do in Mississippi), they could still find their voice in the Senate to be someone like Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott, who has supported racially segregated schools and opposed a national holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. To the shame of us all, the Senate’s “small representation” and correlatively large (statewide) voting constituencies mean that it will remain a singularly white institution, even as the House of Representatives continues to reflect changes in the nation’s racial complexion.

The “small and unequal representation” of the U.S. Senate infects the judicial and executive branches as well as the legislative branch. Because the Senate is the only institution whose “consent” is constitutionally required for presidential appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of the Senate can skew the bias of the nation’s highest court. In the case of the appointment of the highly controversial, conservative, and arguably sexist Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, the Senate confirmed Thomas’s appointment (by a margin of four votes, 52–48), despite the fact that the senators who voted against him represented 7 million more people than the senators who voted for him. In that case, senators from the nine largest states with a majority of the people voted two-to-one against the Thomas confirmation (their vote was 12–6), while senators from the twenty-six smallest states with a majority in the Senate gave Thomas his four-vote margin of victory (they favored him 28–24).

http://harpers.org/archive/2004/05/what-democracy-the-case-for-abolishing-the-united-states-senate/3/

[MohRokTah]

19. The end effect was California vs. Wyoming.

Without it, there would be no United States of America.

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. the end effect is you got Judge Thomas

see the harper's article I posted above in edit.

[MohRokTah]

34. So amend the constitution

It's what we have. IT's how our system works, and there's two choices if you don't like it.

Amend the constitution.

Get a constitutional convention in place.

Be careful what you wish for, you may actually get it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Yep

And it would never be ratified in a million years.

[HereSince1628]

68. An alternative could be to bring government closer to the people

by allowing/encouraging large population states to partition into new smaller population states. Provision already exists for this in the constitution.

Cession of eastern claims on land west of the Appalachians that later became states was a feature of geopolitics in the 1780's and 90's.

Historically the proposals for partition, and there have been many, were based on political divisions, most of these movements failed because they couldn't muster constitutionally required approval of Congress

IIRC since ratification of the constitution, Maine, Kentucky, West Virginia and Vermont emerged in this way. Wasn't Vermont formed from disputed land claims between New York and New Hampshire?

[kelly1mm]

88. You cannot amend the Constitution to reduce or change the state's representation in the Senate,

without that State's consent.

Article Five "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

[MohRokTah]

89. Sure you can.

The amendment would specifically remove that language.

[kelly1mm]

90. No, you really can't. Article 5 is the 'Amendment' Article of the Constitution. It sets

out how amendments can be made. It also specifically bars certain amendments (the Senate one in question) forever and others for a period of time (importation of slaves into the US). Here it is in it's entirety, with the important clause highlighted:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

[MohRokTah]

94. GOOD POINT!

Then the only choice is a constitutional convention which throws out the entire thing and starts over.

Even less likely to happen!

[kelly1mm]

104. Exactly. Even less likely because of unintended consequences. In my opinion, if a Constitutional

Convention is held, the US would split into at least 2 if not more countries (my bet is 5).

[NYC Liberal]

128. There are ways to do it.

Abolishing the Senate would give every state zero votes, which would be allowed under Article V. Then you create a new chamber. You just can't directly make Senate representation proportionate (which would be unequal).

Or you reduce every state's senate representation to only one each, then turn the Senate into a purely advisory body with no legislative power by creating a new (proportionately representative) chamber and giving it all the powers that the Senate currently has.

Ultimately, it would also be possible to just repeal the language of Article V:

Section 1: The fifth Article of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of Members elected by the people of the several States, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Senators shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

[kelly1mm]

129. I do not believe you can amend by appeal a section of the constitution that has it's entire

purpose that it cannot be changed. Further, eliminating the senate would by definition reduce the State's representation in that body, as it would not exist. I do concede that it would be possible to reduce the functions of the senate to noting more than the UK's house of lords (basically no power).

But, really, is this not academic? How would you ever get the necessary states to ratify this when even mid-population states would be swamped by CA, NY, TX, FL, IL, and PA?

A constitutional convention would be practically the only way to modify this clause

[NYC Liberal]

132. There's nothing that says that section itself can't be repealed.

Sure, it would violate the spirit of it. But then again, the entire current Constitution was formed in violation of the amendment process for the previous one (ironically).

And Article V says a state can't be "deprived of its equal Suffrage", not that the number of senators can't be reduced. As long as they're reduced (or increased) equally, you wouldn't need a unanimous vote.

But you're right. It's a moot point because it's never going to happen. Quite frankly I don't think we're going to see any amendments passed for a while because the country is far too divided right now and there are no seriously pressing issues that would require one and that would actually unite enough people to support it.

[mountain grammy]

43. This is an excellent article and it makes a good case...

[onenote]

25. This is a particularly silly statistic

Comparing how many votes Democratic winners received to how many votes Republican winners received is silly. It suggests that Bernie Sanders win in 2012 by 46 percent was somehow less legitimate that Orrin Hatch's win by 35 percent, because in terms of vote total, Bernie got 207,000 votes and Hatch got nearly 600,000 votes.

It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that in presidential election years, turnout is much higher than in "off-years".

Indeed, if you look at the number of votes received by the Senate candidates of both parties over the past three cycles (not just the number received by the winners), the repubs have gotten more votes than Democrats in two of the three, but the Democrats have a margin overall because the margin in 2012 was so large. More specifically, in 2010 repub candidates got 2.7 million more votes than Democratic candidates and in 2014 repub candidate for Senate got around 3 million more votes than Democratic candidates. But the Democrats crushed the repubs in 2012 by an aggregate 10.8 million, meaning that despite losing the aggregate vote in 2 out of the three cycles and losing 54 out of 100 races, the Democrats received over 5 million more votes than the Republicans in the three cycles.

Which is just another way of showing that its a silly statistic.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. +1000000 n/t

[SpankMe]

47. You are correct, and this is a good point.

But the Senate was supposed to be "the deliberative body", which is a politically correct way of saying "a chamber of more aristocratic smart guys to keep the mob rule of the house in check". The senate was supposed to be a much less partisan body that would keep crazy legislation from getting to the president if the house became full of whack jobs. Even in a divided senate, much of the legislation used to be passed or defeated with a pretty decent bipartisan vote.

But the caliber and operational deliberative-ness of the senate has now deteriorated to the same level it is in the house. Most votes are now completely split down party lines (usually with Republicans employing a fuck-Obama strategy instead of actually addressing the problems of the country). And Republicans are electing idiots instead of intellectuals to represent their states in the senate. (Merely looking at any picture of Ted Cruz confirms this.)

So, now that the senate has become merely an extension of the house, from a functional standpoint and from a standpoint of intellectual caliber, it just seems tragic that the numbers are this out of whack.

It's understandable that many would react to these statistics as if they did represent some level of corruption among Republicans as it seems at first glance to violate the general principles of a democracy - even though, as you point out, it really doesn't, and is just the way the numbers fell out.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment

which, I suspect, the necessary 38 state legislatures would not agree to.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. 100% correct

No way 38 states would go for this.

[MohRokTah]

35. You couldn't get a 2/3 majority in the Senate, either. eom

[kelly1mm]

91. You cannot amend the Constitution to reduce or change the state's representation in the Senate,

without that State's consent.

Article 5:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

You would need a constitutional convention.

[Nye Bevan]

92. Interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks. (nt)

[davidn3600]

37. The Senate was never supposed to be about Democracy

In fact, until the 17th amendment, Americans didnt even vote for their Senators, they were picked by the state governments.

The Senate is part of the "great compromise" because during the convention, the small states feared their voices would be drowned out by the bigger and more populous states.

You might say that democracy should rule, but the founding fathers feared all-out democracy almost as much as monarchy. That's why there are several places where democracy can lose in our government. We are a constitutional republic.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. That's because Red States have lower populations....

The system in place was designed when all of the states were along the eastern seaboard. It didn't even include Florida and Maine was considered to be part of Massachusetts. This idea that California and Kansas have an equal say in the Senate is weird.

On the other hand, Rhode Island only seems to exist to give the North 2 more senators.

[dsc]

61. RI was a bastion of religious freedom surrounded by puritans

that is why it exists.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. That may be how it STARTED but as John Oliver says, "Why is this still a thing?"

[billhicks76]

41. Jeb Bush...Please Pay Attention

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The reason Obama was "allowed" to be re-elected was to ensure completely developed hatred from the right and a completed 8 years to fully afflict the Right with BUSH AMNESIA!!!! 4 years people would've still not forgotten Bush crimes. Now they do and are ready for Jeb. This is a major miscalculation on our part not addressing this problem early and succinctly enough. All we should be talking about is Jeb...and that families minion Hillary too.

[appalachiablue]

93. If the people of this country are stupid enough to let Jeb, another Bush be elected in this short

amount of time or ever, then this country should be put at the front of the line for mass extinction, immediately.

[dawg]

108. It may or may not happen, but ..

the fact that we are indeed that stupid is beyond any reasonable doubt.

[billhicks76]

118. C'MON...Bush Sr Has Been Running Things Since 1975

Carter fired him as CIA Director but all he did was regroup...even Reagan was afraid of him as John Hinkley's family were close friends of his father a big republican donor who they lived in the same gated community with in Texas. Watch the Youtube ABC news reports the day of the attempted assassination...they clearly state that Neil Bush was meeting with Hinkleys father the previous night. Coincidence perhaps but ANYONE who isn't afraid of what the Bushes are capable of after everything thats occurred in the last few decades must be living in a bubble. They can win again but they will ale sure they have their hand chosen Clinton backup if someone throws a wrench into the mix like Perot did to frustrate Bush Sr in '92.

[dawg]

120. There's some truth to that.

There are definitely some shadowy forces out there. I don't think they have complete control, but they sure can nudge things pretty hard in the direction they want them to go, can't they?

[billhicks76]

124. Yes Thank You!!!!!

Its obvious many in the media are afraid of Bush Sr and Cheney too and thats why they kiss butt and keep silent.

[jmowreader]

42. It may be time to add some senators

When the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, the entire nation's population was 3.5 million free inhabitants.

In 2013, the state of California had 38.33 million free inhabitants. One state.

The problem with relying on the wisdom and foresight of men who lived over 200 years ago is they weren't able to foresee the nation as it exists today.

I think you could solve a LOT of problems fairly simply.

First, make Congress nonpartisan. They can run as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Pot Party or whatever, but once they actually GET to Congress they must work together, and the party caucuses will be dissolved.

Then add senators as follows: every state gets two. One will be considered the "state's senator." This is the one from that state who's been there longest. The other will be the senator for the state's first ten congressional districts. If a state has more than ten, it'll have one for districts 11 through 20, one for districts 21 through 30 and so on until they run out of districts. The district senator only has to get votes from the districts he or she represents, the state senator runs in the whole state.

And finally, change Congressional terms to four years coinciding with the president's term, and senatorial terms to eight also coinciding with presidential election years.

[kentuck]

44. This is truly a danger to our democracy.

The laws need to be changed. Voting precincts should be as close to 50% as possible. If, for some reason, the precincts got out of whack, say 60% to 40%, then the boundaries should be redrawn. And that should be the only time that gerrymandering should be approved - in order to better balance the voters in the precincts.

Naturally, no law is perfect, but this would be a lot better than what we have right now, or are rapidly headed that way?

Just my opinion.

[X_Digger]

45. Wait, what? As if there are only ever 2 parties, and they are always equal?!?!?

Dafuq?

[kentuck]

49. I guess they would have to include independents and others?

I would agree.

[certainot]

46. those are talk radio states and the only reason the GOP is still in the running

is because democracy-loving americans ignorantly give republican radio a free speech free ride.

biggest mistake in political history considering the time lost on global warming

[appalachiablue]

95. Not only Americans, Dems. have given Hate Media free reign for 20+ years. And it shows.

[Hutzpa]

48. This is an issue that should be taken seriously

gerrymandering and the cooking of vote counting should not be a joke. it was the same method that got George W. Bush
to the White House.

[dem in texas]

50. yes, I totally agree, that is how elections are stolen

I had read earlier how many more Dem's voted in the last election, but the outcome favored the Repubs. This is an injustice and the people are not getting what they deserve. I hope at some point we will get enough honest politicians that they will address this terrible crime.

[sulphurdunn]

51. I'm all for getting rid of the senate,

as soon as we get rid of gerrymandering in the house. Face it, both houses of congress and the Supreme Court are rigged for the benefit of the wealthy and with the exception of short periods before and after WWII always have been.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Looking at the behavior of the House versus the Senate over the last few years,

I think folks should be very wary of abolishing the Senate. For one thing, there are so many members in the House that it is relatively easy for wacko nutjobs to get elected to it. At least the egregiously awful Senate candidates like Todd Akin tend to get more scrutiny than they would get in House races, which makes it harder for them to slip through.

[sulphurdunn]

73. The argument for oligarchy and against democracy

has always been the ignorance of the electorate and the efforts of the oligarchs to keep them that way. Wherever a tiny class of plutocrats control the institutions of society, representative government exists only to represent them.

[mwooldri]

52. Dare I suggest... "Party Lists"?

Instead of voting for a particular person, people vote for a political party. Thus this can open the way for multi-party politics. It might mean that a state gets represented by someone who didn't get anywhere near the majority vote but got enough votes to gain a single seat.

Then again, does an upper chamber have to be representative of the whole population? If the House served four year terms, had half the seats decided on party list vs. candidates, and the Senate becomes a "Revision Chamber" then I think that this would be more representative of the people even if the Senate had 90% Republicans.

Only a handful of people in the UK decides who represents the people in the House of Lords - that is if you can call it representative at all. However then the House of Commons can push through anything via the Parliament Act, so the Lords are a "talking shop" and the Queen is a "rubber stamp" when the Parliament Act is whipped out. But then the UK parliament isn't exactly representing the country as a whole based on party vote proportions. Can't blame the Lib Dems for not trying... the Cons and Labour have a lot to lose if the UK did have a more proportional voting system - hence the AV Referendum failed.

[Nye Bevan]

55. A perfect way to give power to the Todd Akins.

A repulsive Republican candidate can lose even in a Republican district. But if the voters are voting for a party, with the candidate to be named later, it is easier for horrible candidates to be installed into power by their party.

[rogerashton]

67. The British system is really similar to ours --

Worse in some ways with the "first past the post" system, i.e. plurality, not majority rule and no primaries or runoff elections. Party lists in other European countries seem to work OK, mostly, but like a lot of Americans I would like to see parties de-emphasized. Why not elect all representatives at large? Any candidate who can get x number of votes is elected. If she gets them all from central Pennsylvania because she speaks for the interest of deer hunters, fine. If she gets them from all over the country because she defends the religious liberties of some small denomination, fine. Just persuade a certain proportion of the voters to vote in your support.

[LeftishBrit]

146. The problem with party lists is that people in the same party can be very different

A Tony Blair or a Tony Benn; a Maggie Thatcher or an Anthony Meyer; a David Laws or a Sarah Teather. A party list approach, unless carried out very carefully, might give even more excessive power to the Party leader than is the case now in the UK.

A somewhat more representative voting system might be a good idea (in the UK, AV was proposed, and I voted for it, but it was turned down by the majority); but extreme forms of PR tend to give excessive power to small fringenut parties, as is the case in Israel for example.

[edhopper]

53. I wonder if the Founders

ever thought there would be a disparity in population like California and N Dakota both getting equal representation.

[Nye Bevan]

56. I doubt that it was even on their radar screens.

After all, senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote. So the issue of states' populations versus senatorial representation would not exactly have been at the forefront.

[edhopper]

57. And they were just trying to keep the country together.

Guess your right.

[hughee99]

71. They were sure of it, that's why they made

Two separate chambers in congress.

[edhopper]

75. They were sure there would be

this much of a difference in population.

With one Senator representing 40 million people and one less than 2% of that?

[hughee99]

76. In 1770 VA had about 450k people

And GA had under 25k. I don't know how much they contemplated specific numbers, but this exact wide disparity was in their plans. It wasn't just expected, it was planned for. You can certainly take issue with the plan, though.

[bobclark86]

133. Umm... yeah. They did because they saw it then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census

Virginia (747,000) had more than 10 times the people as Delaware (59,000), but both got two senators.

[edhopper]

135. yes

But California has 50X as many people as N Dakota.

That is a five times greater disparity than 1790.

I don't know if they thought the disparities would get that big.

Do you think they would have gone forward with this if Delaware only had a population of 15,000.
Smaller than New York, Boston or Philadelphia at the time.

[bobclark86]

136. Yeah, the would have...

It's called the Great Compromise. Go re-take 8th grade social studies.

[edhopper]

137. I am well aware of the history

But I am just doing a thought experiment.
The larger States accepted this because the smaller ones did not want to be overwhelmed by a straight population apportionment.
But even so, as you showed, the biggest difference was tenfold. So I wonder if the compromise would have still been made with a 50 times difference?

Thanks for the condescending snark though.

[Initech]

59. There are forces far more powerful than us keeping these assholes in power.

[Arugula Latte]

72. Hey, don't you people know that empty acreage is more important than actual people?

[Indydem]

74. "The Senate is a profoundly anti-democratic body and should be abolished."

I don't know whether to get angry at the sheer ignorance of this statement, and others in this thread, or to just sit down and cry.

The Senate is not SUPPOSED to be democratic! Hell, under its original design Senators weren't even directly elected! The Senate is the "republic" part of our "democratic-republic" that was established for a damn good reason by the framers.

Abolished!? How in the fuck would one even go about doing that? Restructuring the entire governing apparatus of our nation? Because that would be where you'd have to start.

Jesus H Christ, we haven't even technically lost control of the senate yet, and our solution to losing control of it is to flush the entire Constitution because there are too many who don't understand that America is not, nor has never been, a democracy?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

78. +1000000 n/t

[GummyBearz]

85. hmm..

"Abolished!? How in the fuck would one even go about doing that?"

If I remember the star wars movies well enough, you just need to create some fake war, have a bunch of clone soldiers made in secret, stir up a lot of fear, and then reorganize the senate into the first galactic empire.

This OP just might be chancellor Palpatine's great(x100) grandfather.

[Revanchist]

134. Wouldn't that be grandson?

After all the movies took place "A long time ago in a galaxy far away"

[GummyBearz]

140. Youre right

I guess I need to rewatch them more often :p

[Donald Ian Rankin]

112. "It's not supposed to be Democratic" is a bug, not a feature.

The people presenting "it's not Democratic" as a problem with the senate are right, and you are mostly wrong.

You're right about the fact that that appalling feature was built into the senate intentionally, but wrong about that being for a good reason - it's because the goal of the founding fathers was not to set up a good system of government, but to set up a system of government all the states would sign up to.

Losing control of the senate is not a good reason to replace it with a decent democratic body; the fact that it's undemocratic is.

[villager]

80. Interesting all the defense of minority rightwing rule that this post sparks...

...here at the "Underground."

[WRH2]

87. fix this in this cycle

Voting districts should be aligned along zip code boundaries.

[LittleBlue]

97. That's the way it's intended in the Senate

The problem is the House.

[tabasco]

98. Thanks Founding Fathers for such a great democracy!

How about a parliamentary system instead?

[Nye Bevan]

99. A parliamentary system has its own problems.

As an example, remember when Margaret Thatcher gained absolute power and a huge parliamentary majority? That was with 42% of the vote.

No system is perfect.

[dawg]

110. True, but people knew who to blame or credit for what the government was doing.

Unlike our system, where people blame Obama for not raising the minimum wage. (Plus, by having a Republican majority in the House, they are able to take undeserved credit for any recovery.)

[valerief]

106. Those 20 million voices will not be heard. nt

[geretogo]

117. Maybe that's because this country is owned and ruled by the minority not the majority .

[beachbum bob]

126. I guess you don't understand the constitution and the fact that

2 senators elected from Rhode Island have as much power as 2 senators elected from California. If the reason escapes you and others why our founding fathers set up the congress the way they did, go back and educate yourselves........I'm a diehard liberal and hate these false arguments that somehow america is being shafted becasue more GOP'ers are being elected with fewer votes.........they get elected because they know how to play the game better stating with state politics and the majority of americans are too lazy to get off their butts to vote

[samsingh]

130. if repugs were in this position they'd be screaming like maniacs and playing victim

all over the place.

we democrats are way too passive and seem to like being kicked around.

the situation is even worse - imagine how many voters were disenfranchised.

[oberliner]

131. That why we also have the House of Representatives

Although somehow they have a Republican majority too.

[sammy750]

138. This article shows how the GOP has fraud the election system,

yet they claim they are protecting the voters from fraud. The real fraud is the GOP. And already the GOP controlled states are fixing to change the counting of the Presidential votes so the GOP can win in 2016.

[brooklynite]

147. No - this article shows the arrangement made 200+ years ago to buy the support of smaller States...

[onenote]

148. No, this article shows how statistics can be made to show almost anything

Looking only at the number of votes that winning candidates get is beyond stupid. And if you look at the votes for members of both parties in Senate elections you get the very unsurprising result: in 2008 and 2012, Democratic Senate candidates outpolled repub candidates in the aggregate and Democrats gained seats. in 2010 and 2014, Democratic Senate candidates in the aggregate got fewer votes than repub candidates and -- no surprise -- repubs picked up seats.