The 50 Republican Senators Represent 43% Of The US Population
The 50 Democratic Senators represent 57% of the US Population.
The 50 Republican Senators Represent 43% Of The US Population
The last time the Republicans in the US Senate represented a majority of Americans was 25 years ago.
Thankfully at the present time such a distinct minority as the 43% does not have control of the Senate, with all its legislative and confirmation and investigative powers, but they could again in as little as two years.
All of Trump's Supreme Court nominees were confirmed and put on the court by a Senate majority that represented less than half of the American people.
How long are we going to stand for this?
-----------------
RELATED
GOP Senators Haven’t Represented a Majority Since 1996 (nymag.com)
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
104 visitors
I think there should be a long term reform of everything to do with the Senate.
When the makeup of the Senate was designed America was not the metropolitan nation it is now.
True, but we did have states that were substantially more populous than other states. In 1790, Virginia had almost 1/5 (about 19%) of the entire country’s people. Four other states - New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina each had about 8% or 9% of the population. The rest were pretty sparsely populated by comparison.
If government power had been based more heavily on population, just a few states working together could have completely dominated the others. The Senate is a brake on that kind of thing.
How about , for starters, no law passes or no confirmation is passed unless it gets votes in the Senate that represent a majority of the American people as of the last Senate election (every 2 years).
In other words if the Republicans are 52 senators but represent only 47 % of the population they couldnt confirm anyone without a vote from some other senator or senators whose state(s) represents at least 4% of the population.
In 1790 almost all of the country was still rural.
Why is that the ultimate distinction we should care about? Even in the less populated Republican states, the majority of the population isn’t necessarily farmers or ranchers. They live and work in the towns, just like in other states.
The Senate is a check on the most populated states, not necessarily on specific political priorities.
That would be the old cloture rule where as 60 votes would be needed to end a filibuster and move the issue to a vote ( it use to be 2/3rds but got changed to the easier to get 60 ) , oh wait some guy named Harry threw that senate rule in the garbage pail.......
That ratio is decieving since 39% of Virginia's population was slaves AND the land mass was half again larger than it is today.
The government's power in the House WAS based on population, most of whom were precluded from voting and were unrepresented [women, the enslaved and Natives]. Without that 'compromise', the south wouldn't have had a say in anything.
In other words tyranny of Democrats.
Not going to happen.
Granted. But it was designed as it is due to the same type of situation. The founders did not want the major population manufacturing and trade centers overwhelming the lesser populated and more rural agricultural areas.
What you see today is the same concept just on a much grander scale. America is not majority mob rule thanks to that structure.
It is not mob rule, it is , at times, a "tyranny of the minority". We have laws passed and judges confirmed and cabinets confirmed that are highly partisan in favor of the minority. This cannot be right.
I don't remember the Democrats calling it that when they were the minority in the Senate. I seem to remember they proudly stood up to use the powers they have to act as a brake on what they felt were bad laws.
My point is not that the minority party in the senate doesnt or shouldnt have rights, that is really not what this seed is about.
The Republicans have been the majority party in the senate, multiple times in the past 25 years, BUT at the same time did not represent the majority of the American people.
I havent looked it up but I doubt the same could be said of the Democrats in the past 60 or so years.
Yes they have. And they have permitted the minority power to use THEIR power to thwart what the majority proposed.
Now that the "shoe is on the other foot", the ones in power wish to do nothing but destroy and eliminate the minority.
I don't know about you, but I find that rather tyrannical and dictatorial. Somewhat reminiscent of what transpires in those bastions of democratic ideals, Communist China and or North Korea.
No they havent. I put a link in the article to a chart that demonstrates this.
Are you trying to claim that the Democrats, when a minority in the Senate did not use the filibuster or any other tool at their disposal to try to thwart the Republicans in the majority?
Please be honest with at least yourself Mr. Russell, I already know better.
Please remember this when the Democrats are the minority party in the Senate again.
No, its not. The system is working exactly the way it was designed, we don't want "Mob" rule (which includes "Majority Rule").
Can you possibly list anything in the US Constitution requiring that the Senate represent the majority?
What is your basis for your theory for change?
I'm not wasting any more time answering you. Expat thinks you are a star. Talk to him.
i see you have finally recognized the futility of your rather weak arguments.
Good on you at last.
Trollin' trollin' trollin' get them doggies trollin' rawhide . . . . .
Yes, it is.
Your point is exactly that they shouldn't have rights.
Are you saying the United States is a majority rule government.
This article is not about the minority party in the Senate, it is about the majority party in the Senate not representing the majority of Americans.
Let me remind you of the comment we are actually talking about, not what you are imagining.
You do understand that Senators represent their states and its citizens.
That is who they are supposed to represent, not the majority of Americans.
Details, details .......
Funny, the 50 Democratic senators , in aggregate, do represent the majority of Americans. Its simple, you ADD the totals of the state populations, and shortly , VOILA !, you have the useful information .
You Republicans would do the same if you were not on the short end of the stick.
You really should stop encouraging Texan. He will never best anyone here.
And you should stop trying to bamboozle people into thinking the Senate is something that it is not.
People who think that we cannot add up the population of the states in order to see which party represents more Americans in the Senate are not really worth "arguing" with.
Never has, never will.
Actually, they represent their state and it's whole population, NOT just citizens.
Don't know what to tell you John. I've already pointed out the reasons why in our current form of Government the states population doesn't matter with the Senate. That you have chosen to ignore that fact can only be called sophomoric.
Some people get that Senators represent their constituents, which isn't the American public at large, but instead just the total in their state.
Show me one Republican Senator who doesn't represent the majority of citizens in THEIR state and I'll show you a person who isn't a Senator.
This whole argument is as silly as those bozos who think Democrats should have more Representatives on Congress based on overall votes. Just unhinged nonsense.
The founders knew history. The "city dweller/country dweller" dispute dates back to the very first cities, 5,000 - 10,000 years ago. The basic theme underlies the Epic of Gilgamesh. States are independent legal sovereign entities. Why would each state fully diminish itself by joining a Union where it was immediately subordinate to a larger state?
States CAME INTO the Union in part because the Senate and the Electoral College were in place and guaranteed a balance between states while recognizing the imbalance in populations.
Your premise is fundamentally nonsense, and possibly illegal. I can't imagine a legal Constitutional amendment that diminishes the political power of a state without that state agreeing to it going forward, given that they've already agreed to something else.
The founders knew history. The "city dweller/country dweller" dispute dates back to the very first cities, 5,000 - 10,000 years ago. The basic theme underlies the Epic of Gilgamesh. States are independent legal sovereign entities. Why would each state fully diminish itself by joining a Union where it was immediately subordinate to a larger state?
States CAME INTO the Union in part because the Senate and the Electoral College were in place and guaranteed a balance between states while recognizing the imbalance in populations.
Your premise is fundamentally nonsense, and possibly illegal. I can't imagine a legal Constitutional amendment that diminishes the political power of a state without that state agreeing to it going forward, given that they've already agreed to something else.
You can bet your bottom dollar that little tidbit of info will be conveniently forgotten by the Dems when it happens.
Of course you do.
They're keeping you from getting your way.
I know
pick me, I have a novel idea, why don't we take the people out of the choosing of the Senators and let each state legislature pick and vote in the Senators for their respective state. I don't know if that has ever been tried before. /s
ok. I'm sure you have made whatever point you set out to make.
Im sure the point being made is that senators DO NOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, they represent the interests of the state with the federal government in THAT relationship and in the relationship between other states , an awful lot of shitheaded shit for brains lickspittles think otherwise obviously.
Want to bitch about the peoples representation in DC with the feds go complain to your states member of the House of Representatives , they represent the you and the people, not the members of the senate , they never have and never will no matter what some one else says .
The article makes no sense.
The Senate doesn't represent the population, nor was it ever intended to represent population. It represents States.
There are three types of parties to the Constitution. Individuals, States, and the Fed govt. The US is locally a democracy, but on a national level, it's a Republic. The Senate is designed to be a longer-term, slower, deliberative body representing States, in contrast to the House, which is a faster, more reactive body, representing indviduals.
So really - the entire article is wrong-headed.
Yeah, but then probably if Republicans could take one seat in California - or even better, both - then it would flip the other way. This is by design and is working as intended.
A very good chance of reclaiming a seat in Georgia and other states are coming into play. Arizona and Nevada come immediately to mind with others closing fast.
It will take more than Arizona and Nevada and Georgia to make the Republican senators represent a majority of the American people.
Do all progressive liberals want to change things up when elections don't go their way?
We have a tyranny by a minority, at present, in the Senate. A simple tweak would fix that, as I suggested above.
Because Republicans are not reasonable is one reason why Democrats should fix the filibuster while they can.
Doesn't matter. It's not MAJORITY RULE if you remember. We're a REPRESENTATIVE republic, no matter how much you and others wish it were not that way.
You might want to check this piece out. It's hardly partisan since it's from the Smithsonian Magazine:
2022 is going to be an eye opener for the radicals of the left as they get crushed by more rational people of both the left and right.
Chicken Little-like hyperbole.
Get real.
Among many stupid things they have done, that would take the cake for stupidity by Democrats.
When the format for the Senate was designed 90% of Americans were rural, now the situation is close to reversed, something like 80+% of Americans live in metropolitan areas. The government needs to adapt to the times.
Your numbers are wrong
IMO this doesn't matter as the Senate was designed to represent the States, not the people. So rural, metropolitan, doesn't matter at all for the Senate. That only matters for the House which is designed to represent the people.
Of course all this is also a moot point as these people in Congress really appear to be there to represent their political party.
No, we don't.
That's ridiculous.
Shit isn't suddenly "tyranny" every time you don't get your way.
It is when the temper tantrums don't work as planned.
That is complete bullshit.
This is also false and a complete misunderstanding of the Senate. You're acting as though this is supposed to be a Democracy. While our system is in some ways Democrative, the explicit purpose was to avoid a Democracy, so that we wouldn't have small advantage dictatorships. The entire Constitution is structured to DIVERSIFY power and force compromise. What you propose undermines the system.
The Republicans have been the "majority" party in the Senate for 15 of the last 25 years. In none of those 15 years did they represent the majority of the American people.
Each Senator represents their state.
If you don't like it, then elect new people.
They only represent themselves it seems and their wallets.
Tell me, did each Senator represent the majority of Americans voting in their respective states?
I'm not answering such an irrelevant (to the topic) question.
I accept your capitulation.
Thanks!
All some have is deflection, projection, and denial - plus the whiny little bitch syndrome.
dont forget the trolling !
How about just a little fucking common sense instead of the stuff you post?
But that 43% thinks they embody 110% of what "their" America should be, conservative white heterosexual Christians.
I really have no problem with the 2 Senators per State, that is working as intended, we just need to do a better job of getting more progressives and liberals to the voting booth so that they will elect like-minded Senators in their States. There are several purple States with large populations of progressives and liberals that currently have two Republican senators like Texas where the party affiliation is split at about 40% each. We just need to get more liberals and progressives to the polls to flip these former bastions of conservative decay from red to blue.
When Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed to lifetime positions on the Supreme Court the Senators that confirmed them represented less than half of the American people. This should no longer be allowed and would be easy to correct.
You just can't seem to grasp that each Senator is elected by a majority in each state.
All this talk of 43% seems like sour grapes because the Democrats only managed to squeak out a tiny majority win even progressives know will be lost next year
I am not your tutor and if you cant grasp the concept of "majority of the American people" its not my problem.
Your tutorial skills are lacking which I proved in a post on another thread. But again, here's a tutorial for you. The United States of America is not a "majority of the people" democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic and was developed that way for very specific reasons which I feel confident the founders understood in much greater detail than either you or I.
However, if you do not like the Constitution and the manner in which we are governed by that document. You have two options.
1- Use the Constitution as designed and utilize the AMDNEMENT process to change it.
2- Use the much less desirable revolution and destroy this country and remake it in a fashion you and your ilk would prefer.
Are you Texans lawyer now? Or maybe his agent? LOL.
No matter. What I am suggesting requires no amendment to the Constitution, although one is probably necessary in the long run to rectify this problem.
The Senate makes its own rules as to what percentage of votes is needed to pass legislation or confirmations.
Hell no. No need to be. From what I've witnessed, he's more than capable of putting you where you belong.
Harry Reid screwed that up....bigly
"Hell no. No need to be. From what I've witnessed, he's more than capable of putting you where you belong."
THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED
I am sorry you find our system of government so repugnant to you that you feel it is necessary to change things to be more favorable for Democrats.
Good luck on your little pipe dream
Now I know you are out of touch with reality.
Confident that I learned everything you could teach me back in elementary school.
The founding fathers understood what a majority of the American people could do and PURPOSEFULLY designed our Government with safe-guards to protect against a Tyranny of the Majority. Two Senators per state, regardless of that states population, is one such safe-guard that has helped accomplish that very nicely for almost 250 years.
The intellect involved in decisions like that is amazing really. Those guys were much smarter than you or i could ever hope to be John.
The Republican senators , as a group, have not represented the majority of Americans for 25 years , yet have had the majority of seats for 15 of those 25 years. They put three conservative justices on the Supreme Court even though they did not represent the majority of the people.
This is a problem whether you like it or not.
Republicans are coming to realize that they might not become a true majority party again, and have that fuel their orneriness.
Not that i agree with much of anything you are saying here John but i can summarize what i'm saying with four repeated words.
Tyranny of the Majority.
The supposition that a NY Senator like Schumer, could represent say a cattle farmer in Montana in any way, is obtuse as one can get. Thus is the beauty of our governments design and why the point you are trying to make is so ridiculous.
25 years is 4 complete senate election cycles (each senate election cycle is 6 years) . In other words each individual senate seat has been up for election 4 times in those 25 years. That is a long time for the Republicans to never have made it to the point where they represent the majority of Americans. It is a trend and it is something that should worry everyone (that they can repeatedly be the majority of the seats without the majority of the American people voting for them.)
That's an obtuse statement considering the FACT that the 'founding fathers 'PURPOSEFULLY' precluded 'the majority of the American people' from voting.
Nope.
When they were voting on Barrett last year, McConnell claimed the Republicans had a "mandate" from the voters to put her in a week before the election.
A mandate implies a sizable majority. He said that crap knowing full well that he had no mandate, he didnt even have a tiny majority of the American people as Republican senate voters.
You know John, i don't like the fact that the speed limit is 55 on most of our state highways but it's law nonetheless. If you don't like how our government is set up up, you have recourse. Amend the constitution but stop trying to bamboozle people into thinking our current government is something that it is not. That's just childish
Your problem isn't really with Mitch, it's with how the Senate is set up that allowed Mitch to do that which you don't like.
Stop bitching and get to amending ........ and good luck!
I see a problem with your math John.
You are lumping the entire population of the state into a single bucket for Dem Senators and the entire population of the state into another single bucket for Rep Senators. That doesn't take into account the people of that state who did not vote for the person who won the Senate election for that state. If you are saying Republicans have never represented the majority of Americans don't you need to include the numbers from each state who voted for the winner and assign the numbers of voters who voted for the other guy to the other side?
That would be a somewhat tedious calculation given that 1/3 of the senators are elected every two years so that looking at the total votes for every senator would involve looking across multiple elections. I'm not going to do that even though I think the result would be the same. But that isnt really my point anyway. The number of people a senator represents is the total population of the state, not just those who voted for him.
ok i was able to find something on wikipedia that lists the popular vote for the senate over the past three elections
2016 Democrats 51,315,969 Republicans 40,841,717
(Democrats picked up two seats. )
2018 Democrats 52,224,867 Republicans 34,687,875
(Republicans picked up two seats.)
2020 Democrats 38,011,916 Republicans 39,834,647
( Democrats picked up three seats)
Three election complete senate cycle (all 100 seats elected)
Democrats 141 ,552, 752
Republicans 115, 264 ,339
The democrats got 55% of the votes over that full senate election cycle (141552752/256817091) to the Republicans 45% but nonetheless the Senate is 50 50.
2020 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia
2018 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia
2016 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia
What the fuck is it about Senators are elected by the people of INDIVIDUAL STATES and NOT national totals do you not understand?
National totals when written on paper can be used to wipe your ass and not much more since they're about as relevant.
Half the population of the United States resides in nine states. Only 18 Senators represent the majority of the population. But Senators do not represent population; Senators represent states.
We already have a legislative body that represents population called the House of Representatives. We don't need two such bodies.
The reason judicial appointments, particularly Supreme Court Justices, are confirmed by state representation in the Senate is because an important purpose of SCOTUS is to resolve disputes between state governments and Federal government. Each state has its own Supreme Court with jurisdiction over the population of each state. State governments have authority, according to the Federal Constitution, to govern the population of each state. The SCOTUS exists, in large part, to resolve questions of jurisdiction and authority between individual state governments and between state governments and the Federal government.
Roe v. Wade is not why SCOTUS exists. Legislation is the function and Constitutional responsibility of Congress and not SCOTUS.
I have explained it on this seed ad infinitum. If you dont get it yet you never will.
They should change the rules of the Senate so that confirmations should not pass unless the votes for represent 51% of the American people.
Hopefully the senate will come to their senses about this one day.
BTW, requiring 60% of the senate in order to pass a regular bill makes no fucking "sense" either.
You know that as the years go by it is less and less likely that the Republicans in the Senate will ever represent the majority of Americans again. You know that, but are happy to keep an antiquated system in place because it advantages your ideology.
I would be embarrassed if the Democrats got a minority of votes for the Senate every senate election cycle for the past 25 years.
You should just be embarrassed for being a Democrat.
Right now the Senate is split 50-50. As the seed points out, Republican Senators represent 43 pct of the population.
If Republicans flipped one California Senate seat, Republicans would have a majority in the Senate (51-49) and would represent 49 pct of the population.
The argument being made depends upon one California Senate seat.
There hasnt been a Republican senator from California since 1992. There havent been two Republican senators from California , at the same time, since 1964.
And? That only confirms my statement that the argument being made depends upon one California Senate seat. Flipping one California Senate seat gives Republicans a Senate majority of 51-49 and Republican Senators would represent 49 pct of the population. Flipping one California Senate seat completely nullifies the argument being made about judicial appointments.
As long as Democrats hold those California Senate seats, Republican Senators have less chance of representing a majority of the population. If Democrats lose just one of California's Senate seats then the entire narrative changes. California is an outlier.
Dianne Feinstein has lost popular support and her incumbency provides less protection. Alex Padilla was appointed and not elected. Don't rely on Feinstein's and Padilla's seats remaining Democrat. There's too much uncertainty to declare victory at this juncture.
With all the natural disasters occurring in California at present everything, quite literally, is up in the air. And the double standards on COVID mandates haven't gone unnoticed. Elections in the near future may become referendums on Democratic leadership.
The argument being made about judicial appointments depends upon one California Senate seat. That's why the argument being made is bogus.
Your argument is basically that the majority being "disenfranchised" is acceptable because one day they might not be the majority any more.
Only 56 pct of California's population is registered to vote. That's the fourth lowest proportion of registered voters to population size in the country.
Arguments about "disenfranchised" voters in a state like California with such a low proportion of registered voters is rather ludicrous. That argument is based upon a phony majority.
Are you denying that the majority of Americans were denied the right to vote by the founding fathers?
You can't possibly be claiming that they did that by accident...
My comment is clear, concise and stands on it's own. Their design wasn't intended as "voter suppression" but rather as, which has already been clearly noted, a check against a possible Tyranny of the Majority. This is very well documented in their writings but specifically from James Madison, our 4th POTUS.
They purposefully didn't design a Democracy for that reason but a Republic, with checks and balances against such mob rule. They were very smart men. Much smarter than you or i ever be.
Why avoid my question Sparty?
Since the concept of 'Tyranny of the Majority' is based on the majority of the ELECTORATE, your statement is obtuse.
They purposefully designed a Republic in which landed white men controlled the government and where everyone else was unrepresented. They succeeded.
I didn't, it's already been answered ...... twice. That you don't like the answer is not my problem.
Not it is not. It is very keen and to the point.
Nah, they purposely designed a Republic that grew into one of the most, if not "the" most successful and diverse free populations on earth. Yeah, they succeeded big time there ...... no doubt. People aren't throwing their babies over walls and swimming rivers to get here for no reason .....
Nope. You deflected. Maybe you forgot the question, here it is again:
Actually, it is Sparty. Maybe a review Madison's Federalists Papers would help you understand that.
Yep.
Wrong again, on all accounts.
Nope, you undoubtedly deflected and you continue to.
Wrong again.
No, it wouldn't. Roughly 18% of the people determine elections. So your argument is off base on two fronts:
1. We don't have a democracy
2. We cannot readily get to a democracy of all the people.
Most confirmations - likely all - have represented less than half the people.
But additionally, the Senate is not based on population. It is based on states. Your premise is nonsense.
It's like you're complaining that a dump truck cannot win Indy against normal Indy cars, and therefore we should change the dump trucks. NO. The purpose of a dump truck is to be a dump truck. You don't seem to understand what the Senate is about.
You already accomplished that in California. How's that working out for you? Literally stepping over and around human shit in the streets of major cities. Crime expanding and making life unbearable for many forcing them to leave not only the cities, but the state? People fearing going to the beach for fear of being stuck by a needle hidden in the sand? Similarily parents fearing allowing their children to use playgrounds for fear of being stuck by needles or the idea of them playing in human shit.
Keep your progressive nirvanas to yourself thank you. The remainder of the country wishes to remain civilized.
MS has about the same rate of opioid abuse as CA and the rate of opioid deaths has declined in the two states at the same rate. Biloxi and San Francisco have almost identical crime rates.
Though now that you're there, I'm sure things will improve in MS. /s
Senate seats are not apportioned by population size, as in the House. When Republicans control the House then Republicans do represent a majority of the population.
Changing the Senate to apportionment by population won't prevent Republicans from controlling the Senate. But that change would mean Republicans represent a majority of the population when they control the Senate.
The argument being put forward is for a unicameral legislature. But that would require amending the Constitution. So, the fall back is to undermine the Constitution with arguments that selectively ignore the purpose of a bicameral legislature and how the House functions. Even if the advocates get what they wish, that won't prevent Republicans controlling both the Senate and the House. Apportionment by population doesn't provide Democrats an edge. In fact, Republicans may become more competitive in elections.
That's false.
The simplest example of that is the comparison of two states with 1 Representative, Deleware and Wyoming. Deleware's population is almost double that of Wyoming.
BTW, House seats are not appropriated merely by population. The 435 cap on the House forces the Feds to use a 'formula' to appropriate Representatives.
Dulay wrote: "The 435 cap on the House forces the Feds to use a 'formula' to appropriate Representatives."
What formula? New seats are usually added after each Census.
You forgot Vermont whose population is about 10 pct larger than Wyoming. Then there's Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Montana. All these states have population sizes of 1 million or less.
The four states of California, Texas, Florida, and New York have 33 pct of the country's population. The nine most populous states have 51 pct of the country's population. The nine most populous states are about equal in population size to 41 less populated states. That's not an equitable division of political power.
It would be easier to break up California, Texas, Florida, and New York into smaller states than change the entire political system of the United States to favor those four states.
Everyone needs to understand that California is the outlier; not Wyoming. The majority of the states in the United States have more in common with Wyoming concerning political representation than they have with California.
The formula amounts to dividing the total population of the United States by 435. Each state must have at least one representative so the average by dividing population by 435 is tweaked to accommodate that 'inconvenience'.
Only 18 Senators represent a majority of the population of the United States. Apportioning Senate representation according to population size would favor nine states. It's an effort to squeeze out 41 states.
Yep, a clear attempt to push for a Tyranny of the Majority. Which will never happen in my lifetime.
The current system has worked well for almost 250 years. Not perfectly but certainly more representative of our entire union than what some here are asking for.
No doubt about that .....
But it's a phony majority.
The number of registered voters in Californian are 56 pct of the state's population. That's the fourth lowest proportion of registered voters to population size in the country. (BTW, Texas ranks third lowest at 55 pct. Surprisingly, to me at least, Wyoming ranks the lowest with 46 pct of the population registered to vote.)
A lower proportion of registered voters to population size gives those voters more power to influence elections. So the arguments using total population size are really using a phony majority to plead their case.
No 'new seats' have been added to the House since 1910. Get educated.
I didn't forget anything Nerm.
Did you forget that my example included Delaware Nerm?
WTF is YOUR point?
What drought you to that unfounded conclusion?
You have GOT to be joking Nerm. 20 states have CITIES with a bigger population than ALL of Wyoming.
The biggest difference concerning political representation between California and the majority of other states is that they don't have gerrymandered Congressional Districts.
Context, Dulay, context..
If a state had 25 seats, then after the census is complete, they gain a seat, then that seat has a "new seat".
Of course, your spin is more correct, though....
right?
What part of seven states have one house district (and 3 electoral votes) is difficult to understand? What part of five states have two house districts (and four electoral votes) is difficult to understand? That's twenty four Senators (24 pct of the Senate) and seventeen House Representatives (4 pct of the House).
Those twelve states have more in common with each other in terms of Senate representation than they have in common with California.
Are you arguing that those 12 states be squeezed out (or disenfranchised as liberals like to portray it)?
New York City has a larger population than 38 states. Los Angeles County has a larger population than 40 states. Why aren't New York City and Los Angeles County reorganized as a state rather than a city and a country?
Spin, bugsy, spin...
Nope, it's one of the same seats that was codified in 1929.
I didn't spin anything bugsy. I stated a FACT, whether you can recognize it or not.
Are you claiming that 'twelve states' constitute 'a majority of the states in the United States' Nerm? Have you forgotten what you claimed already?
Strawman.
Why should they be Nerm? How about we just apportion them MORE Congressional representation.
Hell, as you stated, 12 of the smallest states have 17 Congressmen.
LA only has 18 and their population is 4X larger.
NY only has 27 and they are 3X larger.
In short, your own statements show that the smallest states have dispraportionally MORE representation in the Congress.
Why isn't that a strawman as you alleged for my question? You can't even keep your own talking points in line.
Because there isn't a need to apportion more Congressional representation. Political power is shared equitably in the House according to population size. Political power is shared equitably in the Senate according to the number of states.
No. It may behoove you to look up the definition.
Citing your question as a strawman isn't a talking point Nerm, it's a fact.
Your own statements refute that claim. You said:
And:
The majority of Congressional districts have over 100,000 more people than ALL of Wyoming.
Deleware is almost TWICE Wyoming's population and has the SAME amount of representation.
You brought up registered voters. Wyoming has about 46% registered voters, which equates to about 280,000. Conversely, Delaware has about 75% registered, which is about 742,000. So per your example, an even larger gap in representation.
How you can deem that an 'equitable division of political power' is beyond me.
Wyoming has one House seat. We can't overturn the Constitution and established political system over one House seat. And we can't take away Wyoming's one House seat.
Would you please explain why Wyoming's one House seat is relevant to Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justices? An argument has been put forward that judicial appointees should be confirmed based upon the number of Senators representing a majority of the population.
That means a Senate judicial confirmation would require as few as 18 Senators or as many as 82 Senators. By imposing a majority representation measure onto the confirmation process, Supreme Court Justices could be confirmed without a majority vote in the Senate. Would a Supreme Court Justice confirmed by 20 to 30 Senators be legitimate?
We know which Senators would benefit most from lobbying efforts if such a scheme were adopted.
I should clarify. If I didnt say it, I meant 51 votes including a vote from enough senators to represent a majority of the US population.
I should have known someone would misconstrue what I said.
Since no one suggested doing so, your comment is moot.
I am replying to YOUR comment that started this thred Nerm. That's how this shit works.
You said:
Then you went on to contradict that statement multiple times.
I'm not surprised that you are abandoning your own posit and retreating to the topic of the seed.
You want go through the wayback machine. Fine. Just don't complain when that little retrospective is finished.
As your example of Wyoming and Delaware illustrates, House districts do not cover the same size population. Delaware's lone House district is considerably larger than the ideal district size (determined by dividing the total population by 435, a statistical average). House districts do not necessarily include the same number of people within states, let alone across states. In fact, most House districts are larger than the ideal statistical average; that's an artifact of the method of 'equal proportions' required by law (which is based upon tweaking apportionment based on geometric mean).
The method of 'equal proportions' results in an actual district size that is larger than the statistical mean. So, holding a majority in the House will always represent a majority of the population. The populations of Wyoming and Vermont are not sufficiently smaller than the tweaked district size to overcome the fact that House districts are larger than the statistical mean.
You've argued in a gap without taking into account the overall method and impact of apportionment. The small states don't have significant influence on apportionment (or Presidential elections) simply because they are too small and represent such a small portion of the population. Extrapolating the examples of Wyoming and Delaware to how apportionment of House districts (and electoral votes) really works is utter nonsense and makes for a foolish argument.
That's also why arguing that judicial confirmations should be made based upon majority representation is a foolish argument. Senators represent drastically different sized populations. Imposing a requirement that confirmations (or any other Senate vote) requires meeting a majority test only provides an incentive for politicians representing larger states to abuse the process. That approach would invite corruption and make such offices appealing to the wrong kind of candidates.
The only way to avoid inviting corruption would be to make the distribution of power equitable based on population coverage is through apportionment, as is done in the House. That simply can't be accomplished as the Senate is currently configured and functions; there are too few Senators.
No, you spun.
No amount of denying will change it.
Right here is the truth. Change the argument to fit his/her narrative
Yet you claimed:
It should be obvious to 'our readers' that those two statements are contradictory.
The rest of your post is meaninless argle bargle.
Why are they contradictory?
Only toddlers believe that the portions must be exactly equal to be equitable.
Probably because your incapable of posting comments that are consistant.
Only toddlers use strawmen fallacies when they can't support their posits.
So, the argument is for a double standard? That would seem to fit a particular political narrative.
You know, the only reason this kind of argument is being made is because Democrats got rid of the filibuster on judicial appointments. With the filibuster in place, SCOTUS confirmations would require at least a tacit agreement of two thirds of Senators and all confirmations would represent a majority of the population.
The Senate filibuster directly addresses the problem of proportionate representation in the Senate. With the filibuster in place, all legislation requires tacit agreement of two thirds of the Senate for cloture which ensures the majority of the population have been represented.
Democrats got rid of the filibuster for political expediency and now Democrats are complaining that what they did wasn't as expedient as they thought. Democrats are whining about their expedient rules change to end the filibuster coming back to bite them.
Now you know why the filibuster rules were established and the purpose those filibuster rules serve. Democrats were stupid to eliminate the filibuster and now Democrats are finding out that it's not easy to fix stupid. Put the filibuster back in place and there won't be a need for another Democrat double standard.
No, it shouldn't be that. In fact, it ISN'T that on purpose. That's a design feature, not a bug.
It wasn't desired for the more political body - the House - to confirm lifetime appointments. If you think its bad in the Senate now, keep making it LESS deliberative. The Senate adopted the filibuster rules in part to help force compromise and avoid the very issue that concerns you so. But then Harry Reid got this great idea to waive the filibuster for federal judges, and the crack in the system was made. Dems made this problem, and they could fix it by offering to make the filibuster once again apply broadly.
In the meantime, look for Republicans to control Congress after the midterms.
I think we force Nancy into retirement, thank God.
That's why they are so desperate to pass as much of their nonsense as possible. They know they only have two years to do it.
I hope they keep going on vacation like the lazy fuks they are. Less time to monkey up the works as it were.
This sorry argument for changing the Senate is as harebrained as those idiots who thought Democrats should have more seats in Congress because they got more overall votes.
Complete idiocy.
So you think 43% of the people should choose our Supreme Court judges for the next 30 years.
That is your idea of the right way to do it?
lol.
Now you are creating words I never stated and are attempting to argue what you invented. Rather poor form.
First off, I already know that "people" don't choose members of SCOTUS. Presidents nominate and Senators confirm or not. Last time I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, no SCOTUS member is seated with less than 50% of the Senate vote.
I am just not willing to scrap our system for something unproven based on feelings because I didn't like how an election or two turned out,
Texan, would you acknowledge that if the 50 current Democratic senators pass a reconciliation bill for 3.5 trillion dollars they are representing the majority of the American people?
They are free to pass it if the Parliamentarian approves it.
The real test will be in the midterms if the Dems go that route.
I suppose if Dems pass it and then get booted out, it must NOT have been the "will of the people".
Now, WTF does that have to do with anything?
thats not what i asked you
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, I answered you.
Funny you won;t do the same.
Oh FFS.
It may have escaped you, but Senators do not choose SCOTUS justices.
Sure they do. up or down vote on each nominee
I hope you have a better argument in you than that.
Minor technicalities like that never dissuade zealots.
Finally you're partly correct.
The Senators vote yes or no on the SCOTUS nominee selected otherwise known as chosen by the PRESIDENT.
Uh, geniuses, a yes or no vote on a nominee is a CHOICE. They are CHOOSING to place that individual on the Supreme Court, or CHOOSING to reject them. End of story.
Why is there an argument?
We all learned in 8th grade government why the Senate was created and why the number of senators isn't representative of the population.
This retarded sales pitch was created so that California could get 12 senators, a pants down pipe dream by some fantasy Marx pumping weirdo in San Francisco.
But the senators don't CHOOSE the nominee. That's the Presidents decision.
As you say.... End of story.
Biden keeps picking candidates that have been dead for 50 years, it's complicated. Then his staff tells him they are dead, and he gets sad because their kids are too grown up to sniff.
No one said they choose the nominee. You keep wanting to debate things that no one said.
When Gorsuch , Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed , the choice to put them on the Supreme Court for life was made by senators that represent less than half of the American people.
, the choice to put them on the Supreme Court for life was made by senators that represent less than half of the American peop
Just win some elections and stop whining.
You sound like someone who doesnt think the Republicans will ever represent the majority of the American people again.
They confirm. They do not choose.
ok
Gee, where have we seen THAT before??????
SCOTUS Justices were all nominated and approved to sit on the Court in the manner proscribed by law.
Why do people want to change laws because they don't win enough?
... you mean like the multi-state effort by republicans to change their election laws this year.
Uh, surely even you can recognize that if Republicans are changing laws, then they did indeed "get their way"!
BTFW, where were your "criticisms" of changing laws when many Democratic-run states changed their laws?
John, why don't they simply do away with the Senate? What you are suggesting is the exact same damn thing.
Every state no matter the size or population is allowed 2 Senators. It was created that way to prevent large states from having all of the power. We all know Democrats want to make fly over country truly irrelevant; to make sure none of those people ever have adequate representation.
If that ever happens then we will truly be dead as a country.
www.vox.com /2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court
2020 election: America’s anti-democratic Senate, by the numbers
Ian Millhiser 3-4 minutes 11/6/2020
Democrats defeated Republican senators in Arizona and Colorado this year, while Republicans gained a Senate seat in Alabama .
That means that Republicans will control at least 50 seats in the incoming Senate, out of 100 total, assuming Republican incumbents Sens. Thom Tillis (NC) and Dan Sullivan (AK) keep their seats, as seems likely. Both of Georgia’s Senate seats are likely to be decided in runoff elections in January.
Wins in North Carolina and Georgia would give Republicans the Senate majority — something they would hold only because Congress’s upper house is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California, even though California has more than 68 times as many people as Wyoming .
In the incoming Senate, Democratic senators will represent at least 20,314,962 more people than their Republican counterparts — and that’s if we assume that Republicans win both runoff elections in Georgia. If the two Georgia seats go to the Democrats, the Senate will be split 50-50, but the Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.
I derived these numbers using 2019 population estimates by the United States Census Bureau. In states where both senators caucus with the same party, I allocated the state’s entire population to that party. In states where the Senate delegation is split, I allocated half of the state’s population to each party. Although Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) identify as independent, both Sanders and King caucus with Democrats. So I coded them as Democratic senators.
You can check my work using this spreadsheet .
One other fact is worth noting. In the current Senate, Democrats control a majority of the seats from the most populous half of the states (26-24) . Republicans owe their current majority to a crushing 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states. In the new Senate, Democrats will control between 27 and 29 seats from the most populous half, depending on who prevails in the Georgia runoffs.
Republicans, in other words, would not be in the majority now — and they certainly would not be in the majority next year — if not for malapportionment.
The implications of this malapportionment are breathtaking. Among other things, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were all nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country . If the United States chose its leaders in free and fair elections, none of these individuals would serve on the Supreme Court — and it is likely that Democratic appointees would have a majority on the Court.
Similarly, if Republicans control the Senate in 2021, the GOP will have the power to prevent Joe Biden from confirming a Cabinet, to block everyone Biden nominates to the federal bench, to prevent Biden from signing any legislation, and even to shut down the government.
This is not what the American people voted for in November. But it is what a deeply broken Constitution , which effectively gives extra Senate seats to white conservatives in small states, has given us.
So it must be a little club of disgruntled Democrats all pissed off because they haven't won more elections.
This talking point just won't go away, will it. As been covered many times in the past (all the way back to grade school as I remember) the total population count is meaningless for the purposes of the US Senate. Senators are elected by the states they represent. There is not a national election for a Senator.
If you want to change how the Senate works then change the constitution. The Senate rules do not dictate how Senators are elected in the individual states.
And OMG the Constitution is racist... what next shall the Democrats call racist?
The endless batshittery. For fuck's sake.
The whole point of a constitutional republic is to keep the majority from getting whatever they want and doing stupid shit. The Constitution exists for that reason. The Senate exists for that reason. The Supreme Court exists for that reason. It is the reason that one of the most common phrases in the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law".
It's not "deeply broken". It's working like it's supposed to. It is protecting us from ourselves. More immediately, it is protecting us from the permanent damage sought by extremist lunatics who whine like petulant teenagers about how unfair everything is every time they don't get their way.
So lets have the minority get what they want all the time instead. Thats a good idea.
When you cannot muster a majority of the American people to vote your party into the senate for 25 years in a row, that is not an anomaly, it is a trend.
Yeah, i suppose you really do believe that to be true.
Wild!
The Great Compromise , aka, the Connecticut Compromise , was just one of the many compromises hashed out at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 . To state that the Founding Fathers said much with no reservations and with one voice is just not factual. They did produce the CotUS, which was a work in progress, but even during the ratification period it was still being debated and amended and would not have been ratified if the first ten amendments had not been included to seal the deal. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention was not even intended be: The Delegates were in Philadelphia to "fix" the Articles of Confederation, but a consensus was achieved that it was not enough to fix the Articles but that an entirely new document was necessary.
When we look at the world through todays eyes, some of the compromises that were made can seem strange, but in the summer of 1787, they were what was determined by the Delegates to be necessary to hold our country together as a nation, at that time.
So, what does that mean? It means that the "Founding Fathers were people with representations and concerns both local and national, much like the representatives of today. (The difference today is that information travels at the speed of light, whether it is true or some other manifestation of distorted or falsified reality. That is another topic.)
To the article, yes, John, that less than half the people are represented by 50% of the Senate is true. That is the way that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention saw fit to set it up. Is it perfect? No. It is, however, constitutional and the way it is. While making provisions in the rules of the Senate to provide equal representation of the people for confirmations would seem to be more "Fair" to the voters, I feel that it, too, would be misused because people cannot seem to leave well enough alone and seem to put power/money/agenda before the best interests of the country. If there is a way in which something can be fucked up, just add those ingredients.
The larger issue here is the two party system of which we cannot seem to free ourselves.
Yet that too was established by the founders.
Established? Eh, there is lots of room for discussion on that, as I do not believe any foundational documents specifically identify a two party system. I think it was more organically derived. That is, the "system" was in place because that is how it had been done in the past. It is much easier to deal with two ideas then three or four, and our brains seem to be hardwired to shut down if given too many options. So, the simplest of choices (besides not deciding) is between two policies, two politicians, two teams, etc.
The way the party system works today, we have two parties that are basically gatekeepers for entry into politics, with new parties facing a high bar for entry. From where I sit, the D's and the R's basically control the political conversation. We have gotten to the place where it is more the party with the loudest demagogues is in control, regardless of the policies. This cannot be good.
They 'established' it by immediately adopting it in the 3rd Presidential election, the first to be contested by 2 candidates, both of whom were founders.
All non-official, I think, and not codified by statute, which is what I meant.
The political parties of today are more hardwired into the structure of the state and local primaries. This gives more power to the parties.
We, as a community, need to realize that the issues of the elections that we are voting on are made up by the propaganda of the two parties and do not spring from the "grassroots" of society in general. The voters are therefore "groomed" to vote for one party over the other and to ignore the third party candidates as vote diluters. This creation of the dialogue is not difficult to see and has been developing over many election cycles. The reasons for this behavior by the parties is, to me, self evident:The maintenance of the existing D/R power structure and the ensuing spoils of the nations tax dollars.
Oh it's pretty 'official' since Madison headed one party and Jefferson headed the other.
Madison headed one party and Jefferson headed the other.
Madison was essentially Jefferson’s protege. They were not heads of opposite parties, they were about as famous of political allies as exist in American history.
My bad, I was thinking of Adams, though I'm pretty sure that Adams is also considered a founder.
So my point holds.
To form this country existing states of different sizes, geography, populations, economies and ways came together becoming The United States.
Details .... details .....
Some people are great champions of minorities and act like the majority must accommodate minorities and not say anything that might upset them, let them have their way and all things must be evaluated to protect the minority BUT here we have the strange case where the majority is saying the minority is wrong and things must be changed to suit their majority.
something is wrong with this complaining about Senators and minorities now or has something about minorities and their importance been overplayed by one party for years?
You can't have it both ways
Since when is that a new occurance? Every time the majority changes hands it happens.