Population of states whose senators voted against witnesses are a minority

[rurallib]

I was curious what percentage of the population is represented by the senators who voted against witnesses - and therefore against impeachment.

Found this recent article in Mother Jones https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/gop-senators-representing-a-minority-of-americans-are-preventing-a-fair-impeachment-trial/ that looks at the other votes during the impeachment hearings.

On Tuesday {my note: Jan. 21}, senators representing 153 million Americans outvoted senators representing 168 million Americans.

A majority of the US public supports President Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, and an overwhelming majority wants new witnesses to testify in the Senate’s impeachment trial. But Senate Republicans appear almost certain to succeed in acquitting Trump and blocking the admission of new evidence.

On Tuesday, the first day of the Senate’s trial, Republicans defeated a series of amendments by Democrats to admit new evidence and call new witnesses on a 53–47 party-line vote. What explains the disconnect between the actions of Senate Republicans and the views of the public? Put simply, Senate Republicans do not represent a majority of Americans.

So in the case of the vote on witnesses you can add another 1.6 million from Utah for Romney's vote and another 670,000 from Maine for Collins vote. This makes the totals approximately:

voting NO on witnesses: 51 senators representing 151 million people
voting Yes on witnesses: 49 senators representing 170 million people.

Thus 47% of the people beat 53%. Representative democracy at its finest

[world wide wally]

1. It's no wonder America is so fucked up

It's the same old "minority dictates" over and over

[Baitball Blogger]

5. +1

[Ohiogal]

6. Amen!

[certainot]

20. predictable, they are the most dominated by a few loud talk radio stations that

dem and progressive leaders ignored year after year as it got worse and worse

[jmg257]

2. Senators weren't meant to represent the people - they represent the States.

That's why there is a House of Representatives - to represent the people.

Edited for my stupid math

[rurallib]

7. That is true - just showing how undemocratic the system can be

[2naSalit]

12. Actually...

I think it was meant to make it more democratic by equalizing each state without taking population into account. A state is a state and there should be representation of such in an equal setting. With the House representing populations, small states are at quite the disadvantage for being heard and acknowledged.

This inequality argument over how many people are represented by Senators has no merit because the argument makes no sense given the purpose behind the make up of the Senate.



It's not undemocratic, it is what makes it democratic.


This crap is so frustrating every time it arises.

[crickets]

21. This. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.

What happened January 31, 2020 isn't about how the Senate is apportioned vs how the House is apportioned for each state. It's about a corrupt political party and the Senators in that party who refused to faithfully execute their office on behalf of their constituents and the nation as a whole.

The system didn't fail us. People did.

[2naSalit]

22. Exactly what happened! ...nt

[TryLogic]

44. The people, not so much we the people, but those elected, the politicians!

It has been said that a contract is only as good as the parties who respect it rather than looking for loop holes. I guess the same goes for a constitution, or a law. If the people involved chose to game the system, then it will not work.

Hmm. I think I will point this out to our R senator.

[treestar]

27. How is it more democratic for

people to have less say because their state is bigger?

After the 17th Amendment, it doesn't even apply. They don't represent states now but the voters of those states.

Look at the result in the OP. The minority gets its way. How is that more democratic?

[MarcA]

46. It isn't Democratic, all excuses notwithstanding.

The representation of States is obsolete. Holding on to this outdated concept
simply hastens the demise of this nation.

[Nasruddin]

28. The purpose behind the makeup of the Senate

"it was meant to make it more democratic by equalizing each state without taking population into account"

Perhaps it made sense in 1787.

It stopped making sense around 1820, & it's becoming tyranny in 2020.

[Wounded Bear]

30. It's not democratic, it's republican...

using each term in its literal, not partisan form.

The Senate is a "democracy of the states."

The House is a democracy of the people.

The electoral college is the big problem, and the hardest to change.

[hot2na]

32. I live in California

We have a population of 40 million. Wyoming has only 570 thousand.

California has almost 60 times the population of Wyoming but each state is represented by two senators.

There is indeed merit to the Senate being undemocratic because it is in fact very undemocratic. It's more undemocratic than the electoral college, where Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes and CA gets 55.

[coti]

36. Aren't states just arbitrary lines on a map, though? Why should lines on a map get representation,

when its people that matter?

[MarcA]

45. +1,000 n/t

[dware]

38. Thank you 2nsSalit!!!!

[kurtcagle]

52. This is an argument that goes back to the founding

The United States is just that - a collection of states. The fear that the smaller and more rural states had at the time the constitution was drafted (1787) was that a truly democratic system would disempower them, which was why the Senate (modeled on the House of Lords) was instituted. It was in fact a bone that was throne primarily to the Southern states to keep them from forming their own country, and has always been contentious.

States like Texas, California and New York could end up giving their citizens more representation by splitting up into smaller states. That's unlikely to ever happen however - power, once acquired, is seldom released voluntarily. The Senate could also be stripped of its powers, though again, it's unlikely. I'd argue that moving to a pure popular vote for the Presidency still might be the best solution - the combination of the Senate and the Electoral college serves to place too much power into the hands of smaller states. By eliminating the Electoral College and its arcane rules for state delegates, the protections that the Senate provides in protecting the interests of the states as entities remain, without tippling the scales so far in favor of either group to provide a significant advantage.

[crickets]

53. Nailed it.

By eliminating the Electoral College and its arcane rules for state delegates, the protections that the Senate provides in protecting the interests of the states as entities remain, without tippling the scales so far in favor of either group to provide a significant advantage.

[grumpyduck]

9. In this case they're not even representing the states,

they're representing that PoS in the Oval Office.

[jmg257]

11. Without a doubt - which is why Mitch had to get trump to agree to the deal to delay if he wanted

a no witness vote.

[treestar]

25. They are representing the majority of voters in their states

the original theory is gone with the 17th Amendment. They no longer are there to represent the state as such.

[Greybnk48]

3. There a several State like this too, Wisconsin included.

Sooner or later the lid will blow off of this pressure cooker.

[58Sunliner]

4. It's even worse when you look at how many people actually voted in those states.

Minority of voters voted. @30% is a high turnout.

[The Wizard]

8. Minority rule is not what

Aristotle had in mind when he first conceived the concept of representative democracy. It will be the formula for our demise.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. That came up on MSNBC last night

with one of the panels that I think included Tweety. It sortof underscors the bizarre nature of attempting to find "balance", where you have a state with a population of almost 40 million (CA) with 2 Senators and then have a state with less than 600,00 (WY), also with 2 Senators.

Of course in the House, CA has 53 reps where WY has 1 at-large.

[2naSalit]

13. States w/one Rep are

at a disadvantage in the House which is balanced by the two Senators for every state. Why can't people get this ?

As it is, we all have one Representative per district and two Senators each.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I think in this instance, the issue being underscored is that

the system that has established the Senate as the "House of Lords"-equivalent, originally with the positions as appointees by the state (until a Constitutional Amendment made it an elective office due to the graft and corruption that ensued with perspectives basically buying their seats), has also vested in it a power that the House (representing "the common people" ) does not have.

I.e., the Senate can remove a President and the House cannot.

[2naSalit]

16. Yes, the Senate removes but

they have to have an impeachment in the House first. So it requires all of Congress to remove the president.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. Technically yes

but the ultimate power and final decision rests in the U.S. "House of Lords" (and that had been created the way it was for a reason by those wealthy land-owners who devised a system to cater to that class of "educated men", mostly like themselves, yet who didn't quite fathom the existence of a bunch of RW loon teabaggers, funded by dark money, managing to mix it up with the normal Senate elite ).

Anyone can be "charged" with an offense ("indictment"/"impeachment" ) by the proper authority. But a judge and/or jury will decide on the final outcome of the charge - acquittal or conviction and sentence.

It's been noted that even if there were a conviction, there could also be an additional stipulation to the sentence that would be done as a separate action, where a removed individual could actually be permitted to run for office again if so deemed (see Rep. Alcee Hastings) or they would be forbidden from seeking any public office in the future (am guessing meaning "federal" ).

[moose65]

18. States with one rep are disadvantaged?

Not really. Why should a state like Wyoming get more “say” than California? Or why should it be equal? The Senate is completely undemocratic.

[2naSalit]

19. Only by the number of reps...

but as I said below, in the end, we all have one Rep for our district - which is population density based - and two Senator each.

[docgee]

23. A Wyoming citizen's vote counts about 50x as much as a citizen from New York.

That's due to the EC giving a vote to 1 rep and 2 senators. This is the same thing. The people in Wyoming were represented 50x as much in our Government.

[treestar]

29. The House is not by state but by district

Members of a state do not vote as one. Every single CA representative can vote as they choose, and they will not all vote alike. So CA does not have more power in the House. It is not hard to "get." It is just a fact. The House does not vote by state blocks.

The EC and the Senate do, popular vote per state. Thus giving smaller states more say.

The threat of big states dominating is not even there. But the threat of the minority in small states dominating the majority is. And is happening now. And is why the Dotard is President and why the minority gets its way in a Senate vote.

[coti]

37. We get it, we just don't understand why the lines on a map representing Wyoming need to act as

some kind of counterbalance (in the Senate) to the actual population and people (in the House). How about screw lines on a map?

[2naSalit]

39. That's rather obtuse logic...

I have no counter to it because it's just so abstract that I wonder why it's part of the argument you support.

[coti]

40. It's obtuse to ask why lines on a map matter at all?

Especially when the populations living there have other representation within a larger country.

Since it's so obvious, why don't you explain it to me? Beyond giving extra special treatment to some slaveowners when their support is needed to overthrow a king.

[MarcA]

48. It can not be reasonably defended. Just another tradition that has

outlived its usefulness. Much like some States that gave "equal" representation to
rural counties at the expense of more populated urban counties. City States are now the
reality and government should be reorganized to reflect this.

[dpibel]

51. Nope. House is skewed as well.

One district in Wyoming (the whole state) = 567,000
One district in California (39.5 million / 53 reps) = 745,470

So, sure, we all have one representative per district. But CA is underrepresented by almost 50% relative to Wyoming.

If Wyoming was the baseline for district population, there would be 571 members of the House.

So large-population states are grossly underrepresented in the Senate and merely substantially underrepresented in the House.

[BSdetect]

14. The smallest states should share two reps

when their populations add up to that of CA or NY (or the average of the two or three biggest states) etc

This could be done.

[2naSalit]

17. What?

[docgee]

24. Hell yes.

Fuck state lines. What is this, the 1800's?

[yardwork]

26. Not a democracy!

[gordianot]

31. The Senate represents land it originally was non elected landed gentry.

It is probably the greatest single flaw in the Constitution.

[yaesu]

33. and they are also states that soak up most of the Federal aid in this country so what republiCons

call takers keep voting republiCons in. Stupid is as stupid does.

[jg10003]

34. In 20 years 70% of all Americans will live in just 16 states.

This means that 70% of the population will be represented by 32% of the senate. A handful of rural white right wing republicans will make the laws for everyone. Presidents who lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote will become the norm. And all this will happen even if a Democrat is elected in 2020.

How long can such a system survive? Will Californians want to remain in a union where they drive the economy and pay most of the taxes but have no say in the government? Will people in New York and the northeast be content to live under the rules established by the senators from Alabama and Idaho? What is
the inevitable result of minority rule? Personally, I don't believe the U.S will remain a single unified country by the year 2100. We will have split up into about 7 different countries.

[MarcA]

50. Many Democratic Nations either have no Senate or have abolished them.

Unfortunately, the corrupt rethug regime would never allow such a thing to
even be considered here.

[NoMoreRepugs]

35. Probably going to take something like a 60-40

breakdown to wake this country up.

[GemDigger]

41. How many are red states with a blue governor? nt

[Pepsidog]

43. Hey how about that proposal from Someone from Harvard. Divide District of Columbus into

some 158 states. It can be done by simple majority of House. Before anyone calls me crazy, I know it will never happen or if it’s even legal. But it’s like buying a lottery ticket, you might win and that makes you feel better. This crazy idea makes me feel better. Rs would do it if they were in our position.

[moondust]

47. In 1787

they didn't really know where the population would end up settling over time. The coasts would be a good guess as more immigrants continued to arrive but beyond that...??? I suppose they were trying to be fair to each region.

[rurallib]

49. I read somewhere long ago that Jefferson thought population might get as high

as 10 million some day

[VOX]

54. Seven Red States, pop. 9 million, 14 senators. California, pop. 40 million, 2 senators.

Alaska 737,000
Idaho 1.7 million
Montana 1.1 million
North Dakota 760,000
South Dakota, 882,000
Utah 3.2 million
Wyoming 578,000
TOTAL combined population: 9 million
TOTAL number of combined senators: 14
vs.
California, Democratic state, population: 40 million
TOTAL number of senators: 2
- - - - - - -
This lack of fair Democratic representation, along with an Electoral College that elevates the value of swing states, makes victory difficult for Democrats.