A RedState WYite/Dakotan/Alaskan Has 40 TIMES the Polit.Power In The Senate As A BlueState Cali/NYer

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

A Red State Wyomingite/Dakotan/Alaskan Has 40 TIMES the Political Power In The Senate As A Blue State Californian/New Yorker.

In those 4 smallest (in population) Red States the average resident has 40.2 TIMES THE POLITICAL POWER in the Senate as the average resident in those 2 largest (in population) Blue States. "Political power" = per capita political representation for these purposes.

The converse of course being, per person, Californians and New Yorkers have 1/40th the political power in the U.S. Senate as Wyomingites Dakotans & Alaskans.

Those just 3 MILLION Red State Americans combined have TWICE the political power in the United States Senate as do all 59 MILLION of those Blue State Americans combined. Due, of course to the Senate's wildly undemocratic structure and where those Americans live. The 3 million Americans have 8 senators, all Republican, and the 59 million have 4 senators, all Democratic.


Here's the math:

2019 population in millions
California 39.5122
New York 19.4536
Total 58.9658

Senators: 4, all Democratic.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 14.7414 million people.

2019 population in millions
Wyoming 0.5777
Alaska 0.7374
N. Dakota 0.7601
S. Dakota 0.8822
Total 2.9574

Senators: 8, all Republican.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 0.3697 million people.

14.7414 mill people/D senator
÷ 0.3697 mill people/R senator
= 40.17

[Zolorp]

1. There is a reason a bicameral legislature was called "The Great Compromise"

The only way to appease the slaveholders and actually get a constitution was to give their states with lower population than non-slave states an equal say in one body and to allow them to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in the lower body of the Congress.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

9. Yep.

James Madison didn't want to do it, but he gave in.

It was basically extortion. "No chamber where we hold wildly disproportionate power, NO NATION!"

(A little like, smear my domestic political opponents for me... and clear my buddy Vlad from his rigging 2016 for me... or else your country can die like a dog under Russian attack for all I care.)

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

27. I've found it interesting to consider how they only NEEDED all or almost...

all 13 states for a fairly short window of time. The Founders had to be feeling they needed all 13 states banded together in 1789 primarily for defense against Britain. But within, oh, just 40 or 50 years that wouldn't be the case anymore. An independent southern nation and independent northern one, each standing alone, by the mid 1830s was substantial enough to defend itself against most of the European aggressors likely to try to cause mischief.

I've long believed culturally and attitudinally the South was so distinctive and different from the North, the two really should have been separate nations from the start. Recall that before and during the Revolutionary War the South -- particularly south of Virginia -- was home to as many Loyalists to the King as it was Revolutionaries. North and South have just always been two such different -- and disagreeing -- regions, they easily and probably more appropriately could have gone separate ways from the start.

But, that is, for their vulnerability early on to conquest by European powers.

Madison et al decided to cave in at the time, to get their 13 united states.

What they had to give away to get their "Great" Compromise -- proportionate representation in the national legislature -- has really come back to bite us now, in a nation far beyond what any Founder could ever have possibly envisioned.

[FBaggins]

28. You're making unsupported assumptions

For instance - VA and NC were the largest states at the time... and many of the smallest states were in the North.

It’s a mistake to look at the the politics of the founding era through the lens of modern political alignments.

It wasn’t that long ago that Ford was winning CA and Carter was winning almost all of the South (and TX). In fact... CA was red for several elections in a row even while we maintained overwhelming control of Congress.

We should not assume that the politics of 50 years from now looks anything like the current model.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Pennsylvania was the 2nd most populous state in 1790, NC was 3rd (n/t)

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

2. Now, Time To Be Fair (unlike our opponents) And Show The Reverse Analysis Of The Extreme Case

There are some very populous red states and low population blues, so this contrast of extremes can be done in the reverse, too.

Let's do that. Basing Red or Blue, as above, on Senate delegations.

2019 population in millions
Texas 29.2070
Florida 21.4777
Total 50.6847

Senators: 4, all Republican.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 12.6712 million people.

2019 population in millions
Vermont 0.6263
Delaware 0.9672
Rhode Is. 1.0573
New Hamp.1.3665
Total 4.0173
(one could argue that D.C.'s 0.7025 million residents and 0 senators should be added here; but we won't)

Senators: 8, all Democratic.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 0.5022 million people.

12.6712 mill people/R senator
÷ 0.5022 mill people/D senator
= 25.23

Therefore, the following facts, unhappy ones from the other side's perspective, are also true and could be the basis for this kind of posting on a Republican forum (but won't be, because most of them know by now that the Senate structure favors them massively overall):

A Blue State Vermonter/N.Hampshirite/RhodeIslander/ Delawarean Has 25 TIMES the Political Power In The Senate As A Red State Texan/Floridian.

In those 4 smallest (in population) Blue States the average resident has 25.2 TIMES THE POLITICAL POWER in the Senate as the average resident in those 2 largest (in population) Red States.

The converse of course being, per person, Texans and Floridians have 1/25th the political power in the U.S. Senate as Vermonters, N.Hampshirites, Rhode Islanders, & Delawareans.

Those just 4 MILLION Blue State Americans combined have TWICE the political power in the United States Senate as do all 51 MILLION of those Red State Americans combined. Due, of course to the Senate's wildly undemocratic structure and where those Americans live. The 4 million Americans have 8 senators, all Democratic, and the 51 million Americans have 4 senators, all Republican.


Footnote to the 25 TIMES analysis: Florida became the 2nd largest 2-Repub-senators state only last year. California and NY have both been reliably Blue for a good while, like Texas has been reliably Red.

If one chooses to do the analysis using the 2nd largest "reliably Red" state, Georgia, 10.6174 million population, the results change as follows:

The 2-largest Red States total population falls from 50.6847 to 39.8244 million, i.e. to 40 million compared to the 2-largest Blue States total of 59 million people. The constituents per senator falls from 12.6712 to 9.9561 million, i.e. 10 million compared to the 2-largest Blue States' 15 million constituents per senator. And the ratio of the 4 million residents of the smallest Blue States' power in the Senate, per resident, compared to the average for the 40 million residents to these two large Red States, falls from a factor of 25 to a factor of 20.

To 19.8, more precisely*, using Texas/Georgia instead of Texas/Florida (I still can't fathom ANYbody wanting Rick Scott over Bill Nelson). Compared to a factor of 40.2 for the reverse comparison of extremes in the first post.

* 9.9561 mill people/R senator
÷ 0.5022 mill people/D senator
= 19.82

(Note that similar points could be made about North Dakota's senate delgation, which also became 1-party only last year; and NH's did just 3 years ago. But the resulting numbers change very little if we choose to replace small states with the next-smallest with one-party delegations.)


So. People in ALL large states are getting screwed, badly, in terms of their political representation. And people in ALL small states are being just insanely over-represented... they have WAAAAAAAY more power in the Senate than, well, anything could reasonably justify. These disparities apply for all large vs small states be they blue, red, or purple.

[radius777]

26. Rural white voters - whether Dems or Repubs - are the prime beneficiaries

of the imbalanced system (Senate, EC, presidential primary schedule) we have.

Diverse and urban populations - whether they be Dem or Repub voters - are the prime losers of the system.

IOW, the problem is racial and geographic more than anything else, where the rural whites in both parties have outsized power.

Vermont(blue white state) and Wyoming(red white state) have the same unfair advantage.

Texas(red diverse state) and California (blue diverse state) have the same unfair disadvantage.

[2naSalit]

3. Unrec, trashing.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

14. fascinating & revealing reaction

[DonaldsRump]

4. A solution?

Trump's tax relief hit the Blue States hard. As a result (some say), folks are leaving California for lower tax states like Texas and Tennessee.

Here's a proposal: for D folks that can swing it from these hard hit Blue States, move to Wyoming or the Dakotas or any of these ridiculously small Red states and vote there. It will take very few of us to turn them Purple or even Blue!

I know....dream on.

Anyways, just a thought!

[Drb2072]

5. Easiest fix is to add states

Addition of states only requires a desire “referendum” by the state itself, a state constitutional convention resulting in a constitution, and majority approval by Congress.

If we take the House and Senate in 2020, immediately move to have DC and Puerto Rico admitted.

Next, start a movement to split largest states, California into 4, Texas into 3, NY and Florida in 2.

At the end of the day, we could probably take 6 of 8 senate seats in Cali, 2 of 6 in Texas (with Dallas/Austin”nw Texas” being in play, 2 of 4 in Florida, 2 of 4 in NY, and 4 of 4 in DC/Puerto rico.

In short, we give republicans 8 senate seats from current blue areas but pickup 10 senate seats from red areas or areas underrepresentated by senators.

It adds 18 senators which lessens the power of those senators in Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, etc. instead of 2 of 100, they have 2 of 118.

[Jake Stern]

7. Making DC a state will almost certainly require a constitutional amendment

What MIGHT be possible is an act of congress granting DC two senators and a voting representative.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

6. But The Structural Disadvantage Against Democrats In The Senate Is Pronounced

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2020, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

...and worsening, because the nation's political divide has grown increasingly geographic, and that geography has been urban vs. rural. Predominantly rural states tend to have lower populations than more urban ones. So most of America's numerous predominantly rural states are Red, and are trending moreso.

In 2018, for example, the Democratic candidates for Senate received more total votes in the 35 elections than did the Republican candidates. But we lost 1 senator, net, all the same. Similarly to how in 2016 Clinton won by 2.9 million votes but the highly undemocratic structure of the electoral college negated that expressed will of the American people.

Another good illustration is the numbers of state governments in which the governorships and both legislative houses are controlled by a single party. The current count is 16 Democratic to 22 Republican - up from 15 to 23 last year and markedly improved from the collapse to 5 to 25 just 3 years ago. That said, in 1977 and 1978 Republicans fully controlled only 1 state government in the nation, to Democrats' 27; and as recently as 1993 Republicans fully controlled only 3 state governments.

Most Americans live in Blue States. But today most governors live in Red States, most single-party controlled governments are of Red States, and most U.S. Senators are from Red States. All of those current patterns have manifested from the same underlying, very difficult-to-reverse, and growing urban v. rural political trends.

The competitions for control of the Senate, the White House, and by extension the Supreme Court, are all now structurally weighted against Democrats. The trends for these imbalances are getting worse, not better. Presidents getting electoralcolleged while being rejected by voters hadn't happen in 111 years... before 2000. Now it's happened 2 times in 5 elections and very seriously threatens again this year. The entire terrain has shifted towards this happening often.


I'm not posting all this as some sort defeatism. Of COURSE we fight like hell every single election, overcome the structural obstacles, and do our very best to win in spite of everything aligned against us.

But when the playing field is slanted one is bettter off knowing it... and knowing where it's slanted, and how much.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

8. These Grossly-Undemocratic-Senate Comparisons Can Be Done Almost Endless Numbers Of Ways

One can do very many different sorts of analyses like these, of course. Individual states, combinations of states, ...all states.

I chose to compare "largest two's" to "smallest four's" because it illustrates well how a very few (3, and 4) million Americans' senators, just because of where their citizens live, wield not just AS much power, but TWICE as much power in the Senate as VERY MANY (59, and 51 or 40) millions of other Americans' senators. The 3 million outgun the 59 million, 8 senators to 4.

(I'm sure someplace on the internet someone has calculated for the whole nation the average number of constituents per Democratic senator versus Republican senator for the whole nation. The blue senators' avg number is quite a bit higher. It'd just take some more calculating, or a spreadsheet, to quantify.)

Here's Wikipedia's 2019 state population table, try some yourselves.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

If you want to pare it down to the single starkest power imbalance in this awful system, it's easy to compare one California resident's political weight in the Senate to one Wyoming resident's. That ratio is 1 to 68.4.

The average Californian has 1/68th the political power in the U.S. Senate as the average Wyomingite does.

One man, one vote?
Nice thought. As for reality,
How about one Wyomingite, one vote,
One Californian, 1/68th of a vote.

And thanks to John Roberts' "Citizens United" decision, let's toss in one clandestine billionaire, a few million votes.

[PBC_Democrat]

10. As has been pointed out many times here

The senate was created to represent the states

The House of Representatives was created to represent the people.

Each state is 1/50 of the country and each state has 1/50 of the senators - population comes into play for the HoR

Theoretically even if a state population dropped to five people — they would still have two senators along with one Representative.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

12. I think everybody here already knows that* so I'm not getting the point of your reply.

(* except for the every state = 1/50th of the country part)

Is the message, So everything's cool? That that's just the way it is (so shut up)?

Are you one of the "That's just the way it is so it's fine and don't talk about it" folks? We do have our share with that outlook, I'll warrant.

Or are you saying you believe in the structure of the Senate as it exists... endorse it? support it?


I'll be more specific as to my point. It's that the Senate is an outrageously undemocratic institution... has been since it's tainted, ugly beginning, and has only gotten much, much worse since. And that not just the opposition party now abusing it should be condemned, but the very chamber itself should be, in any and every small way Americans are able to reject it, in toto.

[PBC_Democrat]

20. What I'm saying is ...

Is the message, So everything's cool? That that's just the way it is (so shut up)?

That's the compromise that got the founding fathers on board with the plan. It is what it is. We can spend
time and energy whining about it to like-minded people ...or we can get to work presenting our plans and
ideas to the residents of those states. If our ideas are better we will start winning their votes.

Are you one of the "That's just the way it is so it's fine and don't talk about it" folks? We do have our share with that outlook, I'll warrant.

it's neither fine or not fine ... it's a fact. Complaining at it on DU is preaching to the choir. If you sincerely
think it needs to be changed, there is a process for that.

Or are you saying you believe in the structure of the Senate as it exists... endorse it? support it?

I believe it's a fact of life. Doesn't matter if I love it, hate it, or something in between. The FF had know
way of knowing how the country would grow and change. They put together the best plan they could
come up with ... it's worked pretty well for 244 years.


I'll be more specific as to my point. It's that the Senate is an outrageously undemocratic institution... has been since it's tainted, ugly beginning, and has only gotten much, much worse since. And that not just the opposition party now abusing it should be condemned, but the very chamber itself should be, in any and every small way Americans are able to reject it, in toto.

It was NEVER meant to be democratic. Remember, we don't live in a democracy - we live in a democratic
republic. Voters don't make the decision on each issue, we elect people to do that for us. I believe we
have a better plan for America than they do ... we need to do better at communicating it to voters.

[radius777]

25. The Senate confirms justices for SCOTUS,

which has systemic power in a way that the Founders never could've foreseen.

The Senate is also the only body that can convict/remove a rogue president - we see how that is playing out now.

The Senate overall is a small and exclusive club that not only has 'official' power but also cultural and sociopolitical power.

IOW, the Senate is extremely powerful, and serves a role far outside of what the founders intended... power that is less about individual states and more about the nation and its people as a whole.

[matt819]

11. That's why they call it the tyranny of the minority.

And the electoral college only exacerbates this, where certain states, or even counties, have the capacity to swing an election.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

29. If it's the Republican Senate, just assume most Americans are being bulldozed over.

Lawrence O'Donnell
@Lawrence

The 48 Senators who found Trump GUILTY represent 18 million MORE people than the 52 who voted not guilty.

4:42 PM · Feb 5, 2020

[MicaelS]

13. That is the way the Constitution was written.

That was the only way that the nation could come into being. All the complaining about the Senate is only because it does not benefit us. If the situation were reversed, not one damn thing would said by us.

[maxsolomon]

15. I disagree with that.

Unfair is unfair, and people with ethics will object.

I have ethics and I would object.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

16. You're speaking very much for yourself there. Not for me, or for many others I know.

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2020, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

The cynical, hold-power-at-all-costs political hyperpartisanship that is ripping America apart is heavily concentrated on the Right. It exists on the Left, too, but is not universal on our side like you describe it to be. You paint Democrats with far too broad a brush.

In short, don't tell me what I would think about this chamber of Congress if membership in it was unfairly stacked against Republicans, a weapon for us screwing them over instead of the reverse.

I have people try to tell me the same thing about the Electoral College, if it were to be over-ruling the public will in the opposite direction. But those peoople are all Republicans, they're fine with insulting people this way, by projecting their own behavior onto others. And they're wrong.

Unfair political institutions are poisonous things that ultimately undermine the system at large and hurt everybody, including their ostensible beneficiaries.

[MicaelS]

17. You maybe correct, but I am a cynic.

There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on this subject. But I have yet to see a way to make it fairer, while preserving the intent of the Founders.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

18. I agree we don't have ready ways out of problems that are becoming increasingly untenable.

The only halfway viable one I can discern -- and I acknowledge it would be excruciatingly difficult to do -- is partitioning into two countries, peacefully, at least, given that "amicably" would be asking too much. A divorce mutually agreed to by both parties in a tanking marriage.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. If the situation were reversed, the Rs would be screaming about how unfair it was

and they would be fighting like crazy to get it changed. And we, being the fair minded people that we are, would mostly be agreeing with them and doing what we could to work out a more equitable system.

Don't try to pull the false equivalency thing between us and them.

[Remington]

19. using the same math, how over represented in the house is California and New York?

While each state has 2 senators the house seats are determined by population. Would you say that California has more pull than Wyoming? Is that fair? 2 seats in senate for each state is the equalizer.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. The reps in California represent more people

Than the one in Wyoming, so even there, the people of Wyoming are overrepresented.

The people in more populous states get screwed every way you look at it.

And the Senate is no equalizer. Not while it has more power than the House, and not while it basically picks who gets onto the federal courts and the SC.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

23. The business-as-usual, must-preserve-the-Founders'-1789-design fans

...on this and other The Senate Is Weighted Against Us threads, I wonder if they're fully grasping how far beyond Senate business-as-usual the situation has actually gotten. Speaking here of the Senate's role as gatekeeper to the Supreme Court.

The Senate is able to TOTALLY barricade entry onto that Bench. And I fear this McConnell Senate, today in the process of trashing the Constitution yet again, has become willing to do so for not just for Merrick Garland but for ALL Democratic SCOTUS appointees.

If in November we do beat the Orange Menace in the vote again (I regard that as a given) AND this time the EC as well (which is the question), BUT fall short of winning the Senate, do you think Mitch McConnell is going to allow the new Democratic president to fill any seats that come vacant on SCOTUS?

I'm sad to say that I don't.

In 2016 Senate Republicans were talking about freezing out all Hillary Clinton SCOTUS appointees -- Merrick Garland-ing them -- for not just 1 year but for 4. Based on everything we have seen and presently are seeing from the Republicans in this Senate, I do believe they'll do that. For all of 2021-2022 if they hold the Senate then. And again 2023-2024 if they hold it again.

I strongly suspect the world of SCOTUS politics pernanently changed in 2016... to, call it McConnellism. And that America will never again see a Democratic president's appointee to the Supreme Court receive an up-or-down confirmation vote in a Republican-controlled Senate. They'll just let the Court operate with fewer justices until such time that they hold both the presidency and Senate again. However many years that takes.

If I'm correct about this, then the repercussions from the Senate being structurally so slanted in favor of Republican control have escalated dramatically. Beyond even what we've seen so far. Beyond even its refusal in the past week to do another of its Constitutional duties, to hold a scoff-law president accountable.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Many people here are still living by a river in Egypt. n/t