The People v. the U.S. Senate
when Americans last voted for their senators (over a period of six years), Democrats won the popular vote by more than 8 percent.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics - The Atlantic , Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50–48 , with one senator absent and one abstaining. Only one Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the solidly Republican majority, which represented just 44 percent of the country’s population . Indeed, when Americans last voted for their senators (over a period of six years), Democrats won the popular vote by more than 8 percent. It’s that disproportionality—and the reality that a majority of the country’s population is represented by just 18 senators—that is driving concerns about the Senate’s ability to function as a representative body in a changing America.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
We have a minority of the population, through their senators, deciding every aspect of US legislation and the makeup of the judiciary.
If this were to continue over an extended period of years, I think it would lead to a "revolution". It is not a tenable prospect that the majority in a democracy will submit to be ruled over by a minority.
Here is a good change we could make - if at any particular point the majority party in the Senate consists of senators who received less votes in their last election than the minority party senators received, as a group, any legislation and the confirmation of all federal judges should require 60 votes, so that at least the political party that received the most votes by the people in their last election will have a small amount of power in the confirmation process.
Riiiiight. Because the Senate can pass legislation without the approval of the House or the president. They just wave their wands in unison and......oh.... Hang on......
"Tantrum". The word is "tantrum".
We're Americans. We're not "ruled over" by anybody. I'm not sure why that continues to escape you.
This looks like another one of those whiny Millennial "the Electoral College is so unfair" type of things. It's like the rationalization a teenage kid makes when they're trying to get their way.
The Senate is under discussion because that is where the minority group is in control. As for the president, well he got 46% of the vote, which not only wasnt a majority, it wasnt even the plurality in 2016.
Are there suddenly going to be a lot of people moving to , say Montana?
Do you think we are going to indefinitely have a political system where the 1 million people of Montana have the same say so (through their senators) on who sits as judges in federal courts, and the Supreme Court, as a state with 20 times the number of people , New York (20 mil) ?
When we had an era when senators voted their conscience and coalitions were built around something other than constant party line coercion, it was less significant that sparsely populated states had the same representation. But now, when every senator from a particular party votes 90 or 95 percent by party line, it has become a different story.
If this is not addressed it will lead eventually to civil unrest. The majority will not stand, over a period of time , for the minority of the population dictating policy to the majority, in what is supposed to be a majority rule society.
By the way, we don't have the same issue in the House because House districts are all roughly uniform in size. It is unlikely that the minority party in the House will have received more votes in aggregate than the majority did, simply because of the uniform size of districts.
Uhhhhh, until the US constitution is either eradicated , or amended , THAT is exactly how it will work , each state getting 2 senators irregardless of land mass or population , each STATE has an equal say .
don't like that? get going on an amendment to change it can you think of 13 small states with low populations ( compared to Chicago) , that would vote to NOT ratify such an amendment? ,\
until that happens , it wont change , so your rant is for bupkis.
Indefinitely? No. The United States will end at some point. All nations do.
Will it continue until then? Absolutely.
We have civil unrest. We have stupid leftists screaming at the sky on a weekly basis. If they're not interfering with the Constitutional rights other Americans, they're beating on the door of the Supreme Court building or destroying public property.
The thing is....eventually most of these children will grow up and move on to real lives. They will wisen up and realize that the system that has enabled us to survive and thrive all this time is actually a pretty good one.
This isn't the first time we've seen this, and it probably won't be the last.
That is the contract made between sovereign states 230 years ago. That agreement is the reason there is a United States of America. It's not a country called America. It is a union of independent states. If you don't like the union, maybe you could convince your state to leave and maybe you can get the rest of the country to let you go. But the proposal here would diminish the sovereignty and equality of the states. Why should they stand for that?
Yea, because California deserves to elect the president and have all elective power over everything....GTFO..... Cali needs to be it's own friggen country.... They are whack a doo.
Sooooo Montana residents dont count? It should only be LA and NYC that choose elections now? Its United STATES, not United Los Angeles and New York City. People in fly over states don't count. Only people in Chicago, LA, NYC, Boston etc know whats best for the rest of us
Do you think that the voice of the 1 million people in Montana should have equal representation to the 20 million people in New York?
I don't want to see Montana lose representation , but when the power is abused by the senate leadership, eventually something will be done about it. The senators that voted Kavanaugh in cannot even say that they got as many votes in their elections as the senators who voted against Kavanaugh.
How does that seem right? You dont want the big cities to tell you what to do, but you want to have the small states tell the big cities what to do.
How is it being abused? They have two Senators just like every other state, but their Reps in congress and EC represent the population. Youre mad that the senator from that state voted for K? Seriously, you were saying the other day that the popular vote for Hillary didn't come from a certain state, you tried to say that all the votes (even though they came from Cali) needed to be divided among 50 states...thats how you got your reasoning.... that is just childish....
Translation, when the debate does something John doesn't approve of.
I think EVERYONE should have a voice and not just NYC and LA because they are the most populous. This country would turn into a shithole if those two cities were in charge of shit! Have you seen that LA is having a flea born typhus outbreak? Yea.... let them in control
What I was saying is that people who say that California gave Hillary the popular vote margin are wrong. You could pick any 2 million plus (whatever the figure was) Hillary votes and say THOSE were the ones that gave her the margin. Every individual vote is the same. Whether from California or anywhere else. There is no bloc of votes that gave her the margin.
I can't help it if some "conservatives" can't grasp that.
Some Californians definitely register 8 or more on the "Looney Left-O-Meter". But we have those in every state. It's what happens when people make all their decisions based on their emotions.
The liberal ones do, sure.
still trying to rewrite the constitution huh?
nothing to fear here...
the left is incapable of fighting a wet paper bag.... revolution denied/
all the left is capable of, or will accomplish with that, is getting arrested.
but then again... this would give us the chance to eliminate progressives once and for all
felony riot charges = lose the right to vote... a perfect plan.
lets do it
Nothing says "we can't produce a majority of the voters" quite like whining to defend the silly system we currently have.
If senators voted outside their party sometimes, the fact that small states have two senators would not be a critical issue, or as important. As it is now, a state so small that it only has one or two congressional districts in the whole state can tip the selection of a new Supreme Court justice. The idea of equal amount of senators for metropolises and cow pastures is an idea whose time has passed.
WOW such an obvious BALD faced lie.... tell me , How does a senator get chosen to serve? that's right an election of the eligible voters within a particular STATE. and how are the voters involved ? well they vote for the candidates of their choice.
and how are those votes used? well the candidate that has the MAJORITY of the votes cast is the winner .
SOOOO, every sitting senator received the majority of the votes cast during an election , unless someone is replaced like say a state legislature or gov , if a sitting senator dies .
And I am channeling my inner dan akroyd here..... John you ignorant political partisan slut , you need to go back and take a basic us government refresher course.
I have to laugh at the ignorance, but more than that, the haste to be ignorant that we see here every day.
I'm a little surprised that you are sticking your toe in that water, because you are usually one of the more intelligent ones.
This comment refers to an aggregate majority of votes that were received in their last election by the majority party in the Senate, and the minority party in the Senate. In other words, if you add up all the votes received by the sitting Republican senators, and compare it to all the votes received by the sitting Democratic senators (or any other senators in the minority), we see that the Republicans received less votes. They are the majority in the Senate, but they received less votes than the minority senators did. The reason this is even possible is because so many of the republican senators come from small population states.
So what I said is true. At the present time the Republicans (the majority in the senate) cannot produce senators who received a majority of the votes compared with the minority party senators.
Next time reply to the point being made, not what you imagine it to be.
ok point game match , they got the majority of votes in their state thus were seated as the senate representation . , learn us government just like your biatching about how the senate should be more like the house , well the senate IS different from the house because the reps there don't represent the PEOPLE, they represent the state and the governments of the state, your ignorance is showing john , so before you call someone else ignorant , check your own , [deleted]
You completely missed the point. Sometimes I wonder why I waste time with this.
the left did not produce a majority of voters in enough states to win 2016
you're going to find your "show up to the polls" voting base is smaller today than it was in 2016
the `#walkaways will only continue.
this is what the death of the democrat party looks like. they got infested with progressive anarchists.... the prognosis is not good as there is no known cure.
they will be isolated into small pockets near the coasts and left to rot out their remaining years mumbling about garland, the teaparty, and trump. they will be angry and miserable the rest of their lives.
would you like to make a comment that has a bearing on the seeded topic?
sure john. I would be happy to.
the lefts need to change everything that stands in their way?
is why the democrat party is doomed long term.
aka/ the death of the democrat party
was that simple enough?
did you not know the constitution was specifically designed to protect us from the likes of progressive anarchist BS?
the constitution is working as designed, thats why the left wants to change it and thats why they will have to kill us first... there will be no compromise with the constitution unless ya pass an amendment
there is zero chance of an amendment like this passing.
Show me the passage in the Constitution that dictates what percentage of votes is needed in the Senate to confirm a judge.
There are many Senate and House rules that are not specifically guided by the constitution.
I find it amusing though that you presume the constitution agrees with Republican wishes.
exactly....
show me where you can just up and change those senate rules permanently as in FIX the problem" without passing an amendment?
or... did you only have a temporary fix in mind? if so? my bad.
it is true, the winners dictate the rules in the senate and the losers want to change things... LOL
Cheers
The constitution has nothing to do with it. The number of votes needed to pass legislation or confirm judges is a Senate rule.
If you keep bringing the constitution into it you will be off topic.
john,
I agreed with you...
read that last post again...
do you propose a temporary fix or permanent fix?
I would be over the moon with glee if Democrats actually ran on this madness.
if trump would have ran on changing the constitution because obama?
hillary would have won an electoral landslide of epic proportions
the left does not understand we, along with 7 million obama voters, elected trump to restore power to the states...
not the other way round.
The article does not suggest changing the constitution. If you can't refer to the topic accurately maybe you should move on.
And conversely, if the majority party in the Senate won a majority of the votes in the last three senate elections, then the ability to confirm judges would stay at 50 senate votes.
I guess we'll just be rolling a fatty with the Constitution then.
Heeyyy, I got yer checks and balances right here, man!
If Democrats spent half the amount of time trying to appeal to non batshit crazy people as they do whining about the Constitution, they'd be in good shape.