So, how undemocratic is the US Senate?

[Craig234]

If it were Democratic, you would expect, if each party got 50% of the vote, the Senate would be split evenly; if a party got 60% of the votes, it would get 60% of the seats, and so on.

We know that's not the case. But how bad is it?

This math is rough, but here's what a first look suggests:

The Senate is indeed evenly split, if you count the two independents as Democrats. The Democratic Senators got *over 41 million more votes than the Republican Senators*. How bad is that?

A third of the Senate is elected each two-year election; the average for the last three elections is about 136 million voters.

That would mean that Republicans got about 47 million votes, while Democrats got about 89 million votes. I.e., Republicans got a little over a third of the votes and 1/2 of the seats, Democrats nearly 2/3 of the votes and 1/2 of the seats. That is absurdly anti-democratic. It's a corruption of the system caused by Republican money focusing in low-population states and propaganda systems.

 

[Callen]

As long as the Senate is made up of two from each State it will never represent to the majority of voters but I don't think it was ever intended to.

 

[Grim17]

If it were Democratic, you would expect, if each party got 50% of the vote, the Senate would be split evenly; if a party got 60% of the votes, it would get 60% of the seats, and so on.

We know that's not the case. But how bad is it?

This math is rough, but here's what a first look suggests:

The Senate is indeed evenly split, if you count the two independents as Democrats. The Democratic Senators got *over 41 million more votes than the Republican Senators*. How bad is that?

A third of the Senate is elected each two-year election; the average for the last three elections is about 136 million voters.

That would mean that Republicans got about 47 million votes, while Democrats got about 89 million votes. I.e., Republicans got a little over a third of the votes and 1/2 of the seats, Democrats nearly 2/3 of the votes and 1/2 of the seats. That is absurdly anti-democratic. It's a corruption of the system caused by Republican money focusing in low-population states and propaganda systems.

If go back to the way it originally was in the constitution up until 1913, where state legislators selected their senators, there would be at least 60 republican senators in DC right now.

Personally, I think each state should select 1 and elect 1.

.

 

[Craig234]

As long as the Senate is made up of two from each State it will never represent to the majority of voters but I don't think it was ever intended to.

Do we really care about what was 'originally intended' in a different situation only? It wasn't 'intended' for the citizens to even get to elect Senators. Still a good idea? I'm not saying to abandon the idea, but I am saying to look at how radically out of democratic representation it is because of *abuse*, and consider options to fix that. The current system of pouring money into small states to control them is not what was intended, either.

 

[Craig234]

This does beg the question, if Republicans' position is, "who cares, if it helps them get power, they support it", then what is there to discuss? That's essentially war, as in 'anything goes to get power', one half step short of violence to get power. It means there is no common ground on democracy. Discussion would require some shared values, some shame.

 

[Callen]

Do we really care about what was 'originally intended' in a different situation only?

My post was nothing more than an observation but from where I sit nothing about your system of elections seems designed to represent the will of the majority. Some Red States are even moving in a direction where they can overturn the results of a Presidential election and assign electors as they see fit. A complete overhaul seems needed but good luck with that!

 

[calamity]

If it were Democratic, you would expect, if each party got 50% of the vote, the Senate would be split evenly; if a party got 60% of the votes, it would get 60% of the seats, and so on.

We know that's not the case. But how bad is it?

This math is rough, but here's what a first look suggests:

The Senate is indeed evenly split, if you count the two independents as Democrats. The Democratic Senators got *over 41 million more votes than the Republican Senators*. How bad is that?

A third of the Senate is elected each two-year election; the average for the last three elections is about 136 million voters.

That would mean that Republicans got about 47 million votes, while Democrats got about 89 million votes. I.e., Republicans got a little over a third of the votes and 1/2 of the seats, Democrats nearly 2/3 of the votes and 1/2 of the seats. That is absurdly anti-democratic. It's a corruption of the system caused by Republican money focusing in low-population states and propaganda systems.

Never exclude racism. Rural whites are racist as ****.

 

[Craig234]

My post was nothing more than an observation but from where I sit nothing about your system of elections seems designed to represent the will of the majority. Some Red States are even moving in a direction where they can overturn the results of a Presidential election and assign electors as they see fit. A complete overhaul seems needed but good luck with that!

Yup. The point is, though, that supposedly our culture had evolved to care more about democracy. Hence the Senate becoming elected, hence limits on Gerrymanderng, hence moving from 'smoke-filled rooms at conventions' picking a nominee to primaries (thanks JFK). And how hugely anti-democratic this situation is.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The Senate filibuster isn't in the Constitution either but apparently we're stuck with it.

 

[Jay59]

If it were Democratic, you would expect, if each party got 50% of the vote, the Senate would be split evenly; if a party got 60% of the votes, it would get 60% of the seats, and so on. We know that's not the case. But how bad is it?

It's not a democracy, nor was it intended to be one. The system is set up as a republic.

In colonial times, each state had one vote in the Continental Congress. That form was preserved in the Senate.

This math is rough, but here's what a first look suggests: The Senate is indeed evenly split, if you count the two independents as Democrats. The Democratic Senators got *over 41 million more votes than the Republican Senators*. How bad is that? A third of the Senate is elected each two-year election; the average for the last three elections is about 136 million voters.

What you are pointing out is that the Senate is functioning as designed, ie deliberately not by simple democracy. The House of Representatives is the concession to the popular vote.

That would mean that Republicans got about 47 million votes, while Democrats got about 89 million votes. I.e., Republicans got a little over a third of the votes and 1/2 of the seats, Democrats nearly 2/3 of the votes and 1/2 of the seats. That is absurdly anti-democratic. It's a corruption of the system caused by Republican money focusing in low-population states and propaganda systems.

What is absurd about it? As noted, the setup is deliberate.

 

[j brown's body]

Those whose ideas are so poor, they can't prevail at the ballot, tend to take a dim view of democracy.

 

[j brown's body]

It's not a democracy, nor was it intended to be one. The system is set up as a republic.

In colonial times, each state had one vote in the Continental Congress. That form was preserved in the Senate.


What you are pointing out is that the Senate is functioning as designed, ie deliberately not by simple democracy. The House of Representatives is the concession to the popular vote.


What is absurd about it? As noted, the setup is deliberate.

A Republic is merely representative democracy, it doesn't mean one state's voters should have more representation than another's.

The senate could allow for more populated states to have additional senators.

After all, the difference in population between the largest and smallest states is staggeringly greater now than it was in the time the Constitution was written.

 

[Jay59]

A Republic is merely representative democracy,

Not true. It's a fundamentally different concept.

it doesn't mean one state's voters should have more representation than another's.

Since the allocation is by state, that's impossible. In a real sense, the state itself votes.

The senate could allow for more populated states to have additional senators.

That is called the House of Representatives.

After all, the difference in population between the largest and smallest states is staggeringly greater now than it was in the time the Constitution was written.

You say that like it's a problem. Why?

 

[j brown's body]

Not true. It's a fundamentally different concept.


Since the allocation is by state, that's impossible. In a real sense, the state itself votes.


That is called the House of Representatives.


You say that like it's a problem. Why?

re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/

noun

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
   
   Link
   
   If a small percentage of the population controls the government at the expense of the ever-growing majority, the legitimacy of their power falls into question. Elections become a sham if a lopsided senate and an unelected Supreme Court can thwart the will of the people.

 

[Simpletruther]

If it were Democratic, you would expect, if each party got 50% of the vote, the Senate would be split evenly; if a party got 60% of the votes, it would get 60% of the seats, and so on.

We know that's not the case. But how bad is it?

This math is rough, but here's what a first look suggests:

The Senate is indeed evenly split, if you count the two independents as Democrats. The Democratic Senators got *over 41 million more votes than the Republican Senators*. How bad is that?

A third of the Senate is elected each two-year election; the average for the last three elections is about 136 million voters.

That would mean that Republicans got about 47 million votes, while Democrats got about 89 million votes. I.e., Republicans got a little over a third of the votes and 1/2 of the seats, Democrats nearly 2/3 of the votes and 1/2 of the seats. That is absurdly anti-democratic. It's a corruption of the system caused by Republican money focusing in low-population states and propaganda systems.

It's regional representation.

If we decided to join a one world government, and it was purely democratic popular vote, we would be ruled by Chinese and indians with little care for our specific region.

There is good rationale for regional representation as opposed to pure popular vote.

 

[bave]

You can come to this forum and continue to cry every day about how the democrats deserve more power because of votes, but that isn't how the system works. The legislative body of the US government was intentionally designed to operate in this way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and also to protect states rights. If you don't like that, ok that's your right, change the constitution or stop complaining.

 

[Jay59]

re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/

noun

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
   
   Link
   
   If a small percentage of the population controls the government at the expense of the ever-growing majority, the legitimacy of their power falls into question. Elections become a sham if a lopsided senate and an unelected Supreme Court can thwart the will of the people.

You use a poor definition.

The officials need not be elected. The Roman republic had appointed seats. Many countries have or have had a form of parliament with hereditary seats.

 

[j brown's body]

You can come to this forum and continue to cry every day about how the democrats deserve more power because of votes, but that isn't how the system works. The legislative body of the US government was intentionally designed to operate in this way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and also to protect states rights. If you don't like that, ok that's your right, change the constitution or stop complaining.

The country looked very different, and was very different, when the Constitution was written. It is a mistake to base one's arguments on constitutions and laws, for they are meaningless if they aren't consistent with our values.

It wasn't long ago that democracy - a nation guided by the will of its people was a shared value. As support for the extremist ideas of one party wanes, it's supporters have come to rely more on rules and laws than on our shared ideals.

This is not all that uncommon in our history. At the time our Constitution was written, only landowning white males could vote. A strain of this runs through the history of conservatism. And indeed, the current senate set-up overwhelming protects that view, as the least populated states are predominantly white.

Old wine, new bottles.

 

[j brown's body]

You use a poor definition.

The officials need not be elected. The Roman republic had appointed seats. Many countries have or have had a form of parliament with hereditary seats.

Is that what we want? At the very least, senators were appointed by elected representaives.

 

[bave]

The country looked very different, and was very different, when the Constitution was written. It is a mistake to base one's arguments on constitutions and laws, for they are meaningless if they aren't consistent with our values.

It wasn't long ago that democracy - a nation guided by the will of its people was a shared value. As support for the extremist ideas of one party wanes, it's supporters have come to rely more on rules and laws than on our shared ideals.

This is not all that uncommon in our history. At the time our Constitution was written, only landowning white males could vote. A strain of this runs through the history of conservatism. And indeed, the current senate set-up overwhelming protects that view, as the least populated states are predominantly white.

Old wine, new bottles.

The beauty of the constitution is that it contains the ability to be molded to the future and adjust with time and values.

Like I said, if you don't like it, change it. If you lack the ability to change it, then it sounds like your views are not as widely held as you hoped.

 

[Jay59]

The country looked very different, and was very different, when the Constitution was written. It is a mistake to base one's arguments on constitutions and laws, for they are meaningless if they aren't consistent with our values.

Your contempt for the Constitution is noted.

It wasn't long ago that democracy - a nation guided by the will of its people was a shared value.

There is no ago about it. That is the ideal now.

As support for the extremist ideas of one party wanes, it's supporters have come to rely more on rules and laws than on our shared ideals.

The Democrats will have their time again.

This is not all that uncommon in our history. At the time our Constitution was written, only landowning white males could vote. A strain of this runs through the history of conservatism. And indeed, the current senate set-up overwhelming protects that view, as the least populated states are predominantly white.

I am not getting the connection between the demographic makeup of the founders and the conclusion. Moreover, I don't see a problem to fix.

Old wine, new bottles.

Works just fine. The traditional saying is that you cannot ferment new wine in an old skin.

Is that what we want? At the very least, senators were appointed by elected representaives.

If you are saying consuls were elected, I can give you that much. Note that they had to be pratrician.

 

[j brown's body]

The beauty of the constitution is that it contains the ability to be molded to the future and adjust with time and values.

Like I said, if you don't like it, change it. If you lack the ability to change it, then it sounds like your views are not as widely held as you hoped.

Or because a few have disproportionate power to keep from changing it.

Again, you should examine your values. Do you believe that the government should be based on the will of the people, or just on the will of some people? Traditionally, conservatives hold that view. It has not given us the best outcomes. There us some sense to that view. But when that disproportion becomes so lopsided, the legitimacy of power itself comes into question.

It's kind of funny that you think the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed. I think you realky mean that the beauty of it is that it allows a powerful minority to rule over the rest of us. And you are fine with that.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Just like the Electoral College, the Senate unfairly represents the American public. And just like the EC, this should be changed.

Regardless of how many times people say we have a Constitutional Republic that doesn't mean we can't change the Constitution to make our country more representative. The founders envisioned changes to the Constitution.

The system I like is to start by giving each state one Senator. Then the remaining Senators are given additional Senators based on population. Take each state and divide their population by the U.S. population and express the results as a percentage. Use the percentage to award the total number of Senators. States with very low populations like Wyoming would only have one Senator. States with large populations, like California which has 12% of the U.S. population would get 12 Senators. The final results would be 110 Senators because 10 states have less than 0.5% of the population.

In this scenario 26 states would have one Senator. 12 states would have 2. 8 states would gain 1 or 2 (have 3 or 4 Senators). For the 4 biggest states; FL and NY get 6, TX gets 9, and CA gets 12.

 

[Callen]

the US government was intentionally designed to operate in this way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority

Yes, but what seems to be happening is the tyranny of the minority is controlling the majority. Not sure that one is better than the other.

 

[bave]

Or because a few have disproportionate power to keep from changing it.

Again, you should examine your values. Do you believe that the government should be based on the will of the people, or just on the will of some people? Traditionally, conservatives hold that view. It has not given us the best outcomes. There us some sense to that view. But when that disproportion becomes so lopsided, the legitimacy of power itself comes into question.

It's kind of funny that you think the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed. I think you realky mean that the beauty of it is that it allows a powerful minority to rule over the rest of us. And you are fine with that.

I value the law of the land, you don't. The constitution and the rules of society are not meant to be changed easily or quickly, by design. Only a fool could think that is a good idea.

Just like the Electoral College, the Senate unfairly represents the American public. And just like the EC, this should be changed.

Regardless of how many times people say we have a Constitutional Republic that doesn't mean we can't change the Constitution to make our country more representative. The founders envisioned changes to the Constitution.

In this scenario 26 states would have one Senator. 12 states would have 2. 8 states would gain 1 or 2 (have 3 or 4 Senators). For the 4 biggest states; FL and NY get 6, TX gets 9, and CA gets 12.

As I said above, you are well within your rights to change the constitution, get the votes and see how it goes.

What I will tell you is that your formula for reshaping the Senate is basically the end of the union. 12 California Senators would immediately shift the country into a permanently leftist government that would do unimaginable things for half the country.