How do we break the gerrymandered Senate?

[BigmanPigman]

More people voted for Dems in Senate races but still lost overall. Eric Holder and Obama are trying to end this but what can it be done now? How do Dems realistically change voter suppression if the losing party maintains control? How do we stop minority rule of the Senate when they hold the power to continue minority rule and continued gerrymandering, etc?

[Patterson]

1. Gerrymandering doesn't directly affect the Senate.

The Senate is a statewide race.

[BigmanPigman]

4. MSNBC was discussing this ....

They kept using both terms, gerrymandering and voter suppression, interchangeably. I guess voter suppression that is more accurate. How do we correct this "minority rule"? Is there a way?

[Amishman]

15. Constitutional amendment, which will never happen

Shirt if that, if we want control of the Senate any time soon, we need to win back rural voters. Right now they want no part of much of what we are proposing

We need to be better about using 'gerrymandered'. Gerrymandering is illegally distorting districting for partisan advantage. It does not mean anything that is disproportionate.

The Senate is not gerrymandered and cannot be gerrymandered as it is all state races. PA's new House districts are not gerrymandered, but the Republicans still have an inherent geographic advantage

[kirby]

2. Senate is not gerrymandered...

That word doesn't apply.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Strictly speaking, the Senate isn't gerrymandered...

The way the Constitution was designed, each state gets two at-large Senators, period. There’s no way to redraw “district lines.” Unless you want to try to rewrite the Constitution (good luck with that!), the only way is to flip red seats to blue…which will be easier in coming elections, as we faced an extremely unfavorable battleground this time.

[BigmanPigman]

8. Why do you think Dems will have a better chance I the future?

Why was the battleground unfavorable? How do we change that...which factors realistically can change in the Dem favor? Is this McConnell's doing or the Senate in general? Is this tRump's influence or GOP influence?

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. How can we change it?

By having several million Democrats move to ND,SD, NE, IA,WY,UT and MT

[BigmanPigman]

11. That sucks!

[Igel]

17. Which is one reason (D) lose there.

Because they think the rural areas are backwards, and the people stupid. Condescension never wins "hearts and minds", and when people think there are others telling them how to live it usually yields resentment. Unless you can assimilate them culturally, and we know what progressives think about assimilation.

[DeminPennswoods]

5. We could return to having senators appointed by the states

instead of electing them, but I doubt that makes anything better.

This is the way the founding fathers intended it, so that smaller, less populated states had equal footing with the more populous states holding sway in the House.

[JI7]

6. Senate isn't gerrymandered. the issue there is about population and representation

as compared to other states.

[JI7]

7. puerto rico and dc need to become states

[W_HAMILTON]

21. This.

[Polybius]

10. The Senate gerrymandered?

Can’t blame Republicans for that one. Blame George Washington maybe.

[Polybius]

12. BTW not even a Constructional Amendment can disband the Senate

It’s the one think the Constitution says can’t be changed without a ConCon.

[progree]

13. Yes, it's a big deal- 18% of the population elects a majority of the U.S. senators

And don't let some troll who claims to be "progressive" tell you otherwise.

So anyone that tells you its not rigged and a bigtime serious problem is a RW troll or an idiot.

I don't think that most progressives / Democratic leaning know how tilted the Senate is. I knew there was some unlevelness of the playing field, but I didn't realize how tilted it was, until a month ago when a U.S. House Representative (D) mentioned on the Thom Hartmann show that 18% of the population elects 52 -- the majority -- of U.S. senators.

"the 25 least populous states contain less than one sixth of the total U.S. population"
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

The 25 least populous states have 31 Republican and 19 Dems (including the 2 Independents)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Senate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

First 25 states ranked from lowest to highest population (and the number of Republican Senators):

Wyoming (2), Vermont (0), Alaska (2), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (2), Delaware (0), Montana (1), Rhode Island (0), Maine (1), New Hampshire (0), Hawaii (0), Idaho (2), West Virginia (1), Nebraska (2), New Mexico (0), Kansas (2), Mississippi (2), Nevada (1), Arkansas (2), Utah (2), Iowa (2), Connecticut (0), Oklahoma (2), Oregon (0), Kentucky (2), Louisiana (2).

Total: 31 Republicans, 19 Democrats including the 2 independents (Maine and Vermont).

So if someone tells you that it goes both ways, that a lot of blue states are low population too, show them the above.

With some exceptions, small population states tend to be more rural than average, and rural / small town tend to lean Republican.

21 states combined have less population that California -- the 21 states have 42 senators, California, only 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

[BigmanPigman]

14. What are realistic solutions to this problem?

Do laws need to be changed? This is a constitutional matter I believe so that can't be changed.

[anarch]

16. yes, but it had to be that way to protect the interests of the rural landholders

Otherwise it would just be "mob rule," with all those city-folk making rules for farmers when they have no understanding of the farming way of life. For instance, what if the majority of the population just decided that black people shouldn't be enslaved or something? What the hell would the cotton farmers do then? Their whole livelihood would be ruined, just because a bunch of bleeding-heart city-slickers decided they know better than farmers??

[NewJeffCT]

18. California has 53 representatives in Congress

Those bottom 21 states have 51 total representatives in Congress.

Until Democrats in NY, California and Illinois start gerrymandering their US House, these things won't be taken seriously

[progree]

20. That's fair. Representation should be by population, as the House is, roughly speaking.

The Senate should be likewise. Nobody is ever going to convince me that a million people in one state should have more than 60 times the representation in the Senate as a million people in another state, at least not as long as I remain a progressive. Representation in the Senate or any other democratic legislative body should not depend on what state one lives in.

Edited to add: but to be truly democratic, winner-take-all should be replaced by proportional representation....

[mwooldri]

19. For the Senate? Constitution change.

Copy the UK's Parliament Act. Pass legislation and a constitution change allowing the House to override Senate disagreement. Oh, and judges to be decided by judges, not elected politicians. No more Supreme Court shenanigans.

Never. Going. To. Happen.

[In It to Win It]

22. The only things that will change the make up on the Senate

1. Constitutional amendment
2. A large redistribution of Democrats. States will large Dem surplus would have to lose of their Democratic cushion.
3. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico to tip it in our favor.