[Senate election '14] Democrats got 20 millions more votes than Republicans

[Johan]

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


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."

Here's what that looks like in chart form:

This doesn't mean that the Republican majority is illegitimate or anything like that. Indeed, after 2008 and 2012, the tables were turned: Democrats got more Senate seats than their vote share suggested they should. The problem isn't that the deck is stacked in favor of Republicans. The problem is that the deck is stacked in favor of small states, which receive equal representation in the Senate despite dramatic variance in population. The Senate is a profoundly anti-democratic body and should be abolished.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states/in/5654656


Is that what you call Democracy ?

 

[bobjustbob]

Well, we are a democracy that elects representatives. We vote in our districts. Some elections we vote to our state and congress and even for President at the same time. We vote when we want to and for we want to. We vote because we can. Bitch when you vote and don't bitch when you don't vote. In this system the local farmers don't have to renege to the wants of to the urban. It's a good system.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You understand the concept of districts and states don't you? You also understand that the major metropolitan areas in the United States tend to lean democratic also right? That's right no you don't, yet Georges is the only Frenchman that catches hell around here.

 

[BlkHawk]

Is that what you call Democracy ?

No, that's what we call a Representative Republic.

 

[Mayhem]

No, that's what we call a Representative Republic.

Constitutional Republic...but you have the idea.

 

[Johan]

Well, we are a democracy that elects representatives. We vote in our districts. Some elections we vote to our state and congress and even for President at the same time. We vote when we want to and for we want to. We vote because we can. Bitch when you vote and don't bitch when you don't vote. In this system the local farmers don't have to renege to the wants of to the urban. It's a good system.

No, it ain't a good system. It's a system in which the majority [the urbans] have to renege to the wants of the minority [the local farmers].

Wyoming's population is 550.000 people. That's 74x less than the 37.000.000 of people in California. Still, both are equaly represented in the Senate !

The 8 more populated states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan) have a cumulated population that's over 50% over the country'population. Stiil, they have as much senators that the 8 less populated states (Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC and Wyoming), which cumulated population is only 2% of the country population.
So basically, it means that, in the senate, the voices of 1 "local farmer" weights as much as the voices of 25 "urbans".
Is that what you call Democracy ?

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Flawed flawed and flawed. The people are not truly represented.

 

[Supafly]

Flawed flawed and flawed. The people are not truly represented.

Well, if you look at it like Mitt Romney, Companies are people, too, then it all makes sense

 

[Jack Davenport]

Flawed flawed and flawed. The people are not truly represented.

Yes they are. The problem you have with it is that the political tides change in the US quite often. If there was a perpetual leftist government in place via our system you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[bobjustbob]

Washington DC is a federal district and has no Senators and it's only House Representative in Congress has no vote. Till 1973 they didn't even have a Governor. Everything was run by Congress and still is since Congress can overturn anything they want. They only get 3 electoral votes no matter how many people live there. How do you like that? I sure as hell do.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

The real problem is the 16th and 17th Amendments. Well, that and the lack of term limits in Congress.

 

[bahodeme]

No, it ain't a good system. It's a system in which the majority [the urbans] have to renege to the wants of the minority [the local farmers].

Wyoming's population is 550.000 people. That's 74x less than the 37.000.000 of people in California. Still, both are equaly represented in the Senate !

The 8 more populated states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan) have a cumulated population that's over 50% over the country'population. Stiil, they have as much senators that the 8 less populated states (Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC and Wyoming), which cumulated population is only 2% of the country population.
So basically, it means that, in the senate, the voices of 1 "local farmer" weights as much as the voices of 25 "urbans".
Is that what you call Democracy ?

In the Senate there are 2 per state. The House of Representatives are by population as is the Electoral College (The actual voting party of the Presidency). The Senate & H.R. is set up similar to House of Lords & House of Commons except both groups are chosen by voters. So while Wyoming has 2 Senators, the state has 1 Representative where as California has 53. This way each state is equal as far as the final voting on laws. But as far as sending Bills for the final vote, it depends on the people. The D.C., while it has a Rep., has no vote in Congress because it is not a state. Which is why those who live in the District have been pushing for statehood for the past 30+ years.

 

[bahodeme]

Washington DC is a federal district and has no Senators and it's only House Representative in Congress has no vote. Till 1973 they didn't even have a Governor. Everything was run by Congress and still is since Congress can overturn anything they want. They only get 3 electoral votes no matter how many people live there. How do you like that? I sure as hell do.

They still do not have a Governor. D.C. only has a mayor & city council like most cities. In 1973 the city was allowed Home Rule which put common things like schools, public works, etc. to D.C. without Congress selecting common things such as the Police/Fire Chief. The budget is still decided by Congress even though D.C. residents pay Federal & Local taxes. What this also means is that D.C. residents can write to any Senator in regard to what committee they are on and by law must be answered the same as though they are from their state. Also the residents can lobby a Senator as well. So if the Senator is with the Budget Cmte., whatever group from the District can lobby that Senator whereas if it had representation, that Senator could pass them off to their respective Senator.

 

[Mayhem]

Yes they are. The problem you have with it is that the political tides change in the US quite often. If there was a perpetual leftist government in place via our system you wouldn't have a problem with it.

That's exactly what happens in Washington State. The Liberal population of Seattle and Tacoma outweighs the vastly Conservative vote of the rest of the state.

I'd be happy about it except WA is one of those places that give Liberals a bad name.

 

[bobjustbob]

Okay, so you want all of your city people making policy for the country folk. Let's give the country folk 47% of the say in how you run your cities too. That's how it got split up in 2012. Go make a new thread Jo.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Okay, so you want all of your city people making policy for the country folk. Let's give the country folk 47% of the say in how you run your cities too. That's how it got split up in 2012. Go make a new thread Jo.

If I had my way we'd do away with equal representation in the senate. It's was fine back when we were drafting the constitution but times have changed. The "city people" happen to represent the majority of America. It's ridiculous that small states get to block or shape legislation backed by senators representing the majority of the population.

 

[Rattrap]

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states/in/5654656


Is that what you call Democracy ?

People have already jumped on the label democracy, so I'll skip that part and go to a cautionary warning: we as Americans are borderline indoctrinated into thinking we have the best governing system the world has ever seen. I'm not saying we're wrong. But because of this, starting from the earliest grades in elementary/grade school, suggesting fundamental changes can be tantamount to heresy. One of my more eye-opening realizations when I moved from the country.

...Georges is the only Frenchman that catches hell around here.

Check your bias, eh? Johan gets shit all the time.

Yes they are.

They really aren't, though that isn't anything systemic, just people's inability to vote for people who will actually represent them. A tangent discussion, at any rate...

That's exactly what happens in Washington State. The Liberal population of Seattle and Tacoma outweighs the vastly Conservative vote of the rest of the state.

This is the same pretty much everywhere, no? Oregon has around 4 million people, 2.5 of which live in the Portland metro area.

I'd be happy about it except WA is one of those places that give Liberals a bad name.

Do they?

If I had my way we'd do away with equal representation in the senate. It's was fine back when we were drafting the constitution but times have changed. The "city people" happen to represent the majority of America. It's ridiculous that small states get to block or shape legislation backed by senators representing the majority of the population.

The supporting logic to this has always been interesting to me, because it doesn't really follow. I understand the idea of trying to avoid cities overpowering the countryside, but the problem is thinking of it in those terms at all. Cities don't vote blue, because cities don't vote. Millions of people in those cities do, and it's only through a funny twisting of logic that one comes to be okay with their vote being fundamentally worth less than someone living out in the boonies.

Just some quick math for illustration (numbers from Wikipedia and neverminding the proper voting population):
California's population: 38,802,500
At 53 Representatives, each person is represented by 0.000001366 of a Representative.
At 2 Senators, each person is represented by 0.000000052 of a Senator.

Wyoming's population: 584,153
At 1 Representative, each person is represented by 0.000001712 of a Representative.
At 2 Senators, each person is represented by 0.000003424 of a Senator.

That's over 66 times the representation that Californians get in the Senate (and 1.25 times the representation in the House!).

Putting red versus blue politics aside (because in reality California has *lots* of rural area as well, and even predominantly blue cities are never voting 100% blue anymore than Wyoming's countryside voting 100% red), how is this good representation?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Just some quick math for illustration (numbers from Wikipedia and neverminding the proper voting population):
California's population: 38,802,500
At 53 Representatives, each person is represented by 0.000001366 of a Representative.
At 2 Senators, each person is represented by 0.000000052 of a Senator.

Wyoming's population: 584,153
At 1 Representative, each person is represented by 0.000001712 of a Representative.
At 2 Senators, each person is represented by 0.000003424 of a Senator.

That's over 66 times the representation that Californians get in the Senate (and 1.25 times the representation in the House!).

Sounds like California should start with changing the makeup of their state representatives and senate first as the Calif state assembly has only 80 members and the senate consists of 40 members.. Let's try that before we start revamping the entire U.S. Congress. My state, NC has 50 members in the senate and the house consists of 120 members and has roughly 1/4 the population.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Go make a new thread Jo.

Please don't go ahead Jo.

 

[Rey C.]

In the Senate there are 2 per state. The House of Representatives are by population as is the Electoral College (The actual voting party of the Presidency). The Senate & H.R. is set up similar to House of Lords & House of Commons except both groups are chosen by voters. So while Wyoming has 2 Senators, the state has 1 Representative where as California has 53. This way each state is equal as far as the final voting on laws. But as far as sending Bills for the final vote, it depends on the people. The D.C., while it has a Rep., has no vote in Congress because it is not a state. Which is why those who live in the District have been pushing for statehood for the past 30+ years.

The system won't let me rep you, so I can just give you a :clap: here.