52 Republican Senators represent only 18% of the US population

[ElsewheresDaughter]

GOP Senate IS THE MINORITY! Get it STRAIGHT!

www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/0254/46189

Don't let this "majority rules" bullshit live any longer..... get it straight.... the DEMOCRATIC SENATORS REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION.... point blank.
Time to take a look at who really represents the majority of Americans in the United States Senate......

______________________________

if the principle at stake is "majority rule," consider that the Senate is, by its very nature, an affront to majoritarian principles. The 52 senators from the nation's smallest states could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population.

According to the Census Bureau's July 2004 population estimates, the 44 Democratic senators represent 148,026,027 people; the 55 Republican senators 144,765,157. Vermont's Jim Jeffords, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, represents 310,697. (In these calculations, I evenly divided the population of states with split Senate delegations.) What does majority rule really mean in this context? If the Republicans pushing against the filibuster love majority rule so much, they should propose getting rid of the Senate altogether.

- E J Dionne, Washington Post, 03/22/05


______

Ok let's take a look at those numbers (and not even include Jeffords who votes consistently with the Democrats after leaving the Rethug Party)......

292,791,184 total people

148,026,027 represented by 44 Democratic Senators
144,765,157 represented by 55 Republican Senators

The Democratic Senate contingent represents 50.56% of the people in this nation.
The Republican Senate contingenet represents 49.44% of the people in this nation.

Each Democratic Senator represents 3,364,228 million people in this nation.
Each Republican Senator represents 2,632,093 million people in this nation.

Each Democratic Senator represents 1.15% of the people in this nation.
Each Republican Senator represents .89% of the people in this nation.

The Democrats in the U.S. Senate represent the majority of this nation. So who is obstructing the will of the majority now?

Pull that trigger Frist! Every poll out there says that the public is against you and in favor of the Dems opposing your agenda! It might just happen to coincide with the fact that YOU, not us, are in the minority in this country.....

How does it feel representing the minority, Bill? How does it feel knowing that our party represents the majority, Kossacks?

Anyone wanting to compromise right now, with the poll numbers combined with these numbers is not seeing the real picture.

Tom Delay, tell Billy Boy Frist to come speak with you in a joint session of the "Delusional Insane Fucks Who Don't Want to Meet Reality Face to Face". We would love you for it.

Hell, get Cat Killer with ya too...that would be a 5-star scumbag billboard of lunacy. People of Faith? Ha...Fristy...you're reachin hard..... you must be skurrrred.

2006 can't come soon enough !


www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/alertid=7452471&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Soapbox Alert

THE REPUBLICANS DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS--LOOK AT THIS
WYOMING AND R.I HAVE AS MANY SENATORS AND CA AND NY SEE STORY

Who is the Senate Majority?
Since shortly after the 2004 elections, Senate Republicans have publicly discussed rewriting the filibuster rules so that a minority can no longer block a floor vote. Republicans' justification for doing this rests on the claim that the GOP represents the popular will, while Senate Democrats are an "obstructionist minority" that "refuses to accept reality."

But do Senate Republicans truly represent the majority of voters?
Not at all. Although Republicans gained four Senate seats in the 2004 elections, Republican Senate candidates actually lost the nationwide popular vote. In 33 Senate races across the country, 41.6 million Americans cast votes for Democratic candidates, while just 38.1 million voted for Republicans.

Though only a third of the Senate was chosen in 2004, the 2002 election had a similar bias: Republicans won 65% of the available seats with just 50.1% of the popular vote (52% ignoring votes for third parties). In 2000, Democrats won 56% of the available seats with a bare plurality of the popular vote, but this was not enough to balance the results of 2002 and 2004. In all, over the past three Senate elections, Democrats have beaten Republicans by nearly 2 million votes -- yet Republicans hold a 55-seat Senate majority

Popular votes
Senate seats
Democratic Republican Other Democratic Republican Other
2000 36,788,222 36,729,792 5,797,467 19 15 0
2002 20,470,371 22,198,747 1,606,029 12 22 0
2004 41,630,347
38,142,004 2,114,685 15 19 0
Total 98,888,940 97,070,543 9,518,181 44* 55** 1**
*46 Democrats won election, but only 44 are in the Senate today. (Mel Carnahan died, and Zell Miller served just a four-year term.)
**56 Republicans won election, but one (Jim Jeffords) became an independent in 2001.

This is the second time in four years that the popular vote has failed to determine control of the federal government. In 2001, we inaugurated a Republican President even though a plurality of voters had chosen a Democrat. In 2005, we have a Republican-controlled Senate even though a plurality of votes were cast for Democrats.
These failures have the same basic cause: Democratic votes tend to be concentrated in large urbanized states. In the 2004 Senate race, Democratic candidates won three large states (Illinois, California, and New York) by more than 2 million votes each; Republicans had a million-vote victory in only one state (Ohio). Overall, in 2004 Democrats won 15 states by a total margin of 10.8 million votes, while Republicans won 19 states by a total margin of 7.3 million votes.

"By reference to the one person, one vote standard," write the political scientists Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer, "the Senate is the most malapportioned legislature in the world." Defenders of the Senate point to history and the Constitution, but the historical record is ambivalent. The apportionment of the Senate nearly nearly broke up the Constitutional Convention; the current system passed only after small-state delegates threatened to walk out. Framers including James Madison, James Wilson, and Alexander Hamilton opposed giving small and large states an equal number of Senators. Under such a scheme, Madison feared, "the minority could negative the will of the majority of the people." This is exactly the situation that we have today.

Madison also feared that "the evil instead of being cured by time, would increase with every new State that should be admitted." He was right. Today, a party could in principle control the Senate by winning the 26 least populous states -- though those states contain less than 18% of the U.S. population. The actual distribution of parties is much less extreme that this, but Republicans do gain some excess power by winning less-populous states.

Although they hold a majority of Senate seats, Republicans do not represent a majority of voters or a majority of the population.

When a majority of voters are represented by a minority of legislators, those legislators have a special obligation to make their voice heard. The filibuster represents an important way to do this. By weakening the filibuster, Senate Republicans would further magnify the power of the minority who elected them. It may be legal, but it is not democratic.

[babylonsister]

1. Tell us how you really feel, please?

Thanks for this, and nominated! :toast:

[CatholicEdHead]

2. Squeaky wheel gets the greace

or in this case the whiney wheel, as there is nothing but victim this, victim that ad nasuem.

[d_b]

3. YEARRRHHHHHHHHH!

*kick* *punch* *stab* *burn*

:banghead: :argh: :banghead: :argh:

Let's go kick some repuke ass!

[splat@14]

4. Great post, inescapable logic! n/t

[TwilightZone]

5. Where on earth are you getting 18%?

52 Republican Senators represent only 18% of the US population

144,765,157

divided by

292,791,184

equals

49.44%.

The 18% claim in the story is a theory and an exceedingly far-fetched one, at that. It has nothing to do with the current situation. The possibility of winning the 26 least-populated states while losing the other 24 is as close to zero as it gets.

Edit: typo

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. read the entire 2 pieces and do then redo your math......

or you can simply google "52 republican senators represent only 18% of the American population"
:7

[TwilightZone]

7. I suggest that you take your own advice.

The 52 senators from the nation's smallest states could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population.

The operative word is "could". In this case, "could" and reality have nothing in common.

For that figure to be true based on current numbers, the other 3 Republican senators would have to represent 31% of the public. They do not.

According to the Census Bureau's July 2004 population estimates, the 44 Democratic senators represent 148,026,027 people; the 55 Republican senators 144,765,157.

Again, that's 49%, not 18%.

I would read the second article, but your second link doesn't seem to be going to a valid site. Though, I suspect that the issue is the same.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. google it...many sites available to affrim this...cache link here...

...to "Congress.org"

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:jOXwF3TBCyMJ:www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/%3Falertid%3D7452471%26content_dir%3Dua_congressorg+52+republican+senators+represent+only+18%25+of+the+US+population&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[TwilightZone]

10. There's nothing to affirm. The situation doesn't exist.

The articles you posted make it quite clear that this is just a theory and does not represent the current situation.

The actual distribution of parties is much less extreme that this, but Republicans do gain some excess power by winning less-populous states.

18% of 292 million is 52.5 million. If you really believe that 52 senators represent 52.5 million people, do you also believe that the other 3 represent over 92 million people?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. just the population of NYC alone is equal 10 red states! NYC BLUE

State July 2004

Alabama 4,530,182
Alaska 655,435
Arizona 5,743,834
Arkansas 2,752,629
California 35,893,799
Colorado 4,601,403 2
Connecticut 3,503,604
Delaware 830,364
DC 553,523
Florida 17,397,161
Georgia 8,829,383
Hawaii 1,262,840
Idaho 1,393,262
Illinois 12,713,634
Indiana 6,237,569
Iowa 2,954,451
Kansas 2,735,502
Kentucky 4,145,922
Louisiana 4,515,770
Maine 1,317,253
Maryland 5,558,058
Massachusetts 6,416,505
Michigan 10,112,620
Minnesota 5,100,958
Mississippi 2,902,966
Missouri 5,754,618
Montana 926,865
Nebraska 1,747,214
Nevada 2,334,771
New Hampshire 1,299,500
New Jersey 8,698,879
New Mexico 1,903,289
New York 19,227,088
North Carolina 8,541,221
North Dakota 634,366
Ohio 11,459,011
Oklahoma 3,523,553
Oregon 3,594,586
Pennsylvania 12,406,292
Rhode Island 1,080,632
South Carolina 4,198,068
South Dakota 770,883
Tennessee 5,900,962
Texas 22,490,022
Utah 2,389,039
Vermont 621,394
Virginia 7,459,827
Washington 6,203,788
West Virginia 1,815,354
Wisconsin 5,509,026
Wyoming 506,529
Total U.S. 293,655,404

[DCal]

29. Smallest States: 30 Republicans, 21 Democrats, 1 Independent

The quote is:

"The 52 senators from the nation's smallest states could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population."

The word Republican does not appear in the sentence. You put it in there to intentionally mislead people. You also posted the same story a couple of weeks ago with your own inaccurate heading.

Here are the facts:

Of the 52 senators from the nation's smallest states, 30 are Republicans, 21 are Democrats and 1 is an Independent. They are not ALL Republicans.

And, please, don't say "just Google it." That proves nothing.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. excuse me, who the hell are you?..I did NOT add in any words! "republican"

was stated on the floor of the senate by Levine and on C-Span by Jon Corzine more than 2 weeks ago.. so Jon Corzine and Carl Levine misstated it too?

....i do believe sir/madam, that perhaps you made a wrong turn back at the fork in the road!!!



......Congress.Org -- Issues and Legislation
... But do Senate Republicans truly represent the majority of voters? ...populous states -- though those states contain less than 18% of the US population. ...
www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/ alert/?alertid=7452471&content_dir=ua_congressorg - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

Dakota Today
... even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population. ...that Republican theocratic Senate partisans are using the right tool or just ...
dakotatoday.typepad.com/ - 101k - May 1, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

[DCal]

38. Breakdown of 26 Smallest States by Party

Below are the 26 smallest states that represent 18% of the population with the parties of the Senators that represent them in parentheses.

AK (2R)
AR (2D)
CT (2D)
DE (2D)
HI (2D)
ID (2R)
IA (1D,1R)
KS (2R)
KY (2R)
ME (2R)
MS (2R)
MT (1D,1R)
NE (1D,1R)
NV (1D,1R)
NH (2R)
NM (1D,1R)
ND (2D)
OK (2R)
OR (1D,1R)
RI (1D,1R)
SC (2R)
SD (1D,1R)
UT (2R)
VT (1D,1I)
WV (2D)
WY (2R)

That totals 30 Republicans, 21 Democrats and 1 Independent (not, as you have repeatedly tried to imply, 52 Republicans).

Those are the facts.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. Remarks by Senator Byrd :"Stopping a Strike at the Heart of the Senate"

on the floor of the senate chamber...so i guess all three senators (Corzine, Levine and Byrd) are wrong..gesssh

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/1/181833/6375

<snip from below Senator Byrd qoute>
"Indeed, in the last Congress, 52 members, a majority, representing the 26 smallest states accounted for just 17.06% of the U.S. population."

"When it comes to the Senate, numbers can deceive. The Senate was never intended to be a majoritarian body. That was the role of the House of Representatives, with its membership based on the populations of states. The Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, satisfied the need for smaller states to have equal status in one House of Congress: the Senate. The Senate, with its two members per state, regardless of population is, then, the forum of the states.
Indeed, in the last Congress, 52 members, a majority, representing the 26 smallest states accounted for just 17.06% of the U.S. population. In other words, a majority in the Senate does not necessarily represent a majority of the population. The Senate is intended for deliberation not point scoring. It is a place designed from its inception, as expressive of minority views. Even 60 Senators, the number required for cloture, would represent just 24% of the population, if they happened to all hail from the 30 smallest states. Unfettered debate, the right to be heard at length, is the means by which we perpetuate the equality of the states. ..."

[LimpingLib]

36. Its such bad logic that its pathetic though (your quotes).

Its bad logic in justifying the filibuster.

Because the President and congress wanting something already gives the majority its say.

His logic needs to be reversed to say "can just 15% of the population have the right to veto the majority"?

I not tryig to be flip.

Its just the fact of the matter.

[rinsd]

43. And their mayor is GOP....

...and the Governors of the most populous states are GOP.

Population as represented by Governors

Democrats = 109,213,099
Republicans = 183,888,782

The point? Numbers are fun when you warp the context.

[AuntiBush]

25. Re-think on Demographics

Less people per mile = less people to influence. Understandably, you're point is close, but think of per populace.

There are more Republicans in Congress, we all understand this. Yet, more Americans are represented by the Democrats.

Am I the only one that understands this!?! :crazy: More land doesn't mean "the majority." Neither does having more rep's.

[Mr.Green93]

9. Senators represent their States

Representatives the people.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. this is why the filibuster was created...

As every state has two Senators regardless of population, it is possible for a coalition of 51 Senators to actually represent only 18% of the population. This is another reason why it makes sense for major decisions to require the support of 60%.

[tinrobot]

12. Exactly...

I'm sick of a bunch of small states telling us in New York and California that they're in the majority.

They're not.

[SoCalDem]

22. WY ..1 rep per 168,843 people..... CA 1 rep per 652,614 people

drops to 125K if you add Cheney to the 3 that WY has now..

I know it;s the way it is, but how is it fair that a state with less than 600K people have an equal say as CA??

Parliamentary government at least gives all groups some leverage.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. OMG!!! I LOVE YOUR BABY PICUTE OF "THE SCREAM"!!!! EXCELLENT!

[seasat]

28. The num of Representatives is the bigger issue.

When they fixed the size of the house it hurt the more populous states and helped the less populous states. If they set a real ratio in the house and expanded it to cover the population evenly, then we would fair better. The senate, IMHO, is to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" but the house is there to prevent the current "Tyranny of the Minority".

On another topic, one thing that I wish they would federalize, is the redistricting process. All states should have a standard that has an independent body use GIS software and set up districts based on statistics using contiguous area and socio-economic demographics. It would make more sense than the gerrymandered mess coming out in most states. We'd lose some in areas like California but we'd gain in areas like down here in FL.

[SoCalDem]

32. Exactly.. Our 435 number is totally unrealistic

They should have no more that 150K people to represent, and let the chips fall where they may.. and with the modern computer equipment, I wouldn't mind seeing reapportionment every 5 years..

Computers should grid the whole place and drop the gerrymandering completely..If they need residency requirements, make it 5 years.. No more moving to an underrepresented area where there are lots of "your kind"..(Sorry Hillary)..

I would like a congressperson who represents ME to actually have lived here a while and really KNOW what we need..

[LimpingLib]

34. Is reform even in the Democratic party lexicon?

Honestly, the base is clueless.

We are already going for dumb 2008 strategys when we are getting killed every 2 years and massacred every 10 years through redistricting (and overlooking it every step of the way).

Some of these "How will Rove bash Clarks running mate" threads are all the more idiotic when we are getting bindsided in states like Texas and Georgia as we speak.

Want to know how many posts I have seen in support of supporting a referendum on the Florida 2006 ballot that makes reistricting a fair process (and its kicks n SAP so all the districts will be redrawn in time for 2008 in a state where GOP has an 18-7 congressional advantage)?

Just 1 , and that was a thread I started.

Want to know how many "I dream of Clark" THREADS (forget posts , I would need 2 years to finish all the digits) I have seen. About 256 trillion......just this week.

Nothing will wake us up.

[BlueEyedSon]

14. It is POSSIBLE but it is not the case.

[LimpingLib]

30. COMPLETE UTTER BULL$h**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO PEOPLE JUST MAKE THIS CRAP UP AS THEY GO?

Im glad you at least included the quotation marks to show that it was a repeat from some moron who bought the right wing propaganda the Democratic party has claimed as its very own.

Do you honestly think that a President can be elected by just 18% of the population?

The filibuster was designed to come from small conservative states, was designed to stop a President elected by the majority of the population (not 18%), was designed to stop legislation supported by the workers (ie. MAJORITY of the nation)through the congress first THEN the majority in the Senate.

[Selatius]

13. The Senate was formed as a compromise for small states

This is the way things have been since the beginning of the Republic. This is why Congress is bicameral in nature instead of unicameral. If this is unacceptable, then changes should be made. If that is not possible, then perhaps a new arrangement should be negotiated.

Anyone up for a new Constitutional Convention?

[dansolo]

18. That would be a really bad idea

If you think things are bad now, just think if a new Constitution were to be written in the current political environment.

[stevedeshazer]

20. Oh, yeah...GREAT idea...NOT

At a time when the Republicans control:

The House of Representatives

The Senate

The Executive Branch

The Supreme Court 5-4 with Justices retiring sooner than later

The media

All our energy and food sources

And you think a new "Constitutional Convention" would be a good idea?

NUTS!

[Darranar]

16. This is why we should get rid of the Senate. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

19. That would be the WORST possible thing

Get real.

[Darranar]

45. Why? n/t

[stevedeshazer]

47. You can't possibly be serious.

What would you propose instead?

[Darranar]

48. A proportionally-elected house instead. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

49. That's the House of Representatives

We already have that.

:shrug:

[Darranar]

50. No, it's not. The House of Representatives is district-based....

I'm talking about a party-list proportional system, in which one votes for a party and that party gets a number of seats representing from the percentage of the vote it recieved.

[stevedeshazer]

51. Okay, but it took four posts to get there!

How would such a thing work? Like Canada, Europe?

[Darranar]

52. I'm not sure if there is another government that would resemble...

what I'm talking about.

Lots of parliaments have proportional representation, but most of them are unicameral with votes of no confidence, neither of which would exist in this case.

[Clarkie1]

17. These are very important and enlightening statistics.

Bookmarked and recommended.

I wish the MSM would do stories on facts like this.

[ComerPerro]

21. Republicans do want to get rid of the Senate

You can't gerrymander the Senate like you can the House.

And consider Alan Keyes. One of the platforms he ran on was to end direct election of Senators. He would prefer they are selected by the state legislature.

[paineinthearse]

23. I saw Senator Levin make this point during floor debate last week

but was too busy to post it.

Thanks for the post.

[AuntiBush]

24. I knew it! Just talking about this the other day!!! Brilliant Post!

This needs to kick!

Yes! So glad to see this out here. It's all about "demographics."

Repuks surely studies this early on. When one thinks this, it's empowering. No wonder their "Sore Winners." They KNOW they're out-numbered and the Gig is about up.

2006 can't come fast enough.
Excellent Post!

[brownecowe]

27. Yes but that does not translate into votes

Face it, the Dems are the minority. They have fewer votes that the Rethugs although they may represent more people.

Sure it sucks that California and Wyoming have the same number of senators, but that's how it is.

[GOPBasher]

31. That's why I hate the way the senate is set up.

It's not democracy this way.

[Charon]

53. Democracy

The fix is simple. All you need to is amend the Constitution.

[GOPBasher]

54. I agree.

That would be cool, but how can we get that done? That issue is not even on the radar. No one dares talk about it.

[borg5575]

37. That's irrelevant.

Under our constitution, the Senate was set up as a counter balance to the House, which is based upon proportional representation, and to provide an equal voice to the smaller states. The Senate was never meant to be set up for proportional representation, and it would take a constitutional amendment to change that fact, and that's not going to happen.

[ultraist]

39. Excellent OP! n/t

148,026,027 represented by 44 Democratic Senators
144,765,157 represented by 55 Republican Senators

[LimpingLib]

40. Actually,this is old and has lost its punch post November.

We used to have an even greater lead in these Senate numbers plus since Bush won more votes than Kerry (though I think Diebold had alot to do with it), this really is a bit weak..

Perhaps it helps those who never knew the way the system works though.

[rinsd]

41. Bizarro scare meme.......

a) It's an absolute worst case scenario that is highly unlikely to happen.

b) It simply ignores that the Senate's purpose is to represent the states.

c) When Madison made his quotes they were also under the old Senate election rules which were done by state legislature. So "the minority could negative the will of the majority of the people" is dilluted by the fact that Senator are now directly elected by the people.

d) Why bother having a Senate if you'll make everything population based in terms of representation?

Using population models of representation I suppose then that the GOP could claim a huge edge in "people's will" based on Governors.

[LimpingLib]

42. They are using it to justify the filibuster. With bad logic too.Horrible.

They want to talk about 18% (52 Senators)being able to represent the majority and therefore the filibuster should be kept in place since the minority is really the majority. (EDIT: it also overlooks the fact that there IS a House elected by the majority in a more equal way AND the Presidential office that closely sync's with the majority as well so this 18% argument is an embarresment and anybody who uses it to justify the filibuster rule/law is just..man....I feel sorry for the person)

As a so called "liberal" , these kind people better look at it another way.14% (41 Senators can represent that)can stop whatever the fuck they want even if the other 86% of the nation living in the other 30 states agrees unanimously in a particular change to the status quo.

It does so happen that the 20 most conservative (SOLID GOP) states represent just 30% of the nations people.So 30% represent 40% of Senate seats,so what? Im not bitching about that. Thats fair and square, and I can live with it.Granted Id rather abolish the Senate all together but I CAN LIVE WITH IT.

What I CANT live with is the filibuster. Frankly no progressive can expect to get anywhere with it.Unless you are stupid and ignorant of reality.Putting your head in the sand wont help.

Anyway ,this whole filibuster debate proves that the right is winning. When you (thats us liberals) have to resort to flippant logic and cheap "wins" then you know you are sinking fast.

[rinsd]

44. No need to be so harsh about it.....

While I think this meme is a little silly especially as justification of the fillibuster, people are just looking for any and all ammo. One can put it a little more gently, especially to fellow liberals.

[Massacure]

46. No shit. Every state gets 2 senators no matter how big or small.