"A Really Small Slice of Americans Get to Decide Who Will Rule the Senate"

[applegrove]

A Really Small Slice of Americans Get to Decide Who Will Rule the Senate

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2014-who-votes-in-midterms/

"SNIP..........................



See link for amazing charts.

..........................SNIP"

[philosslayer]

1. Very disturbing

And we call ourselves a democracy? Clearly the American experiment is no longer working.

[yeoman6987]

3. Nothing disturbing about it

These are the Senate seats that are close. In 2016, we have 38 up for reelection. We never have all 100 Senators up at the same time. Absolutely a fine process.

[davidpdx]

5. Very true

Oregon had a close race 6 years ago and we were able to elect a second Democrat. This year we don't and frankly I'm fine with that (plus two progressive D's).

The problem is more about how many seats we have to defend and how many of those are in conservative states. That is just life.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. A really small percentage of Americans get to decide who controls the Senate anyway

even if all 100 seats were up for election in the same year the representation model used in the Senate means that states representing 55 million people can elect a majority. Sixteen percent of the population elect 50% of the Senate.

[SheilaT]

2. For the last twenty years or more,

in every election cycle, someone decides that some specific small group of voters are the actual determinates of the outcome. I have always despised that sort of analysis, and feel it contributes to a low voter turnout. If you're not in the specific group that matters, why bother to vote?

Sometimes I wish that none of these sorts of surveys or analyses were allowed, and that direct election of the president -- not the idiotic 18th century crap of the electoral college -- were to come about. I want my vote to count, whether I'm a Democrat in a very Republican state, or a Republican in a very Democratic state. If you are in a state which is clearly going to go very strongly one way or the other, you really have little incentive to vote, because if you're in the minority, with the electoral college system, your vote does not matter at all. And if you're with the majority in your state, your vote still doesn't matter very much, since it's a winner take all system.

If we could ever switch to a true popular vote system, it would totally alter the nature of presidential campaigns.

[davidpdx]

6. The article in the OP is talking about the Senate

while you are talking about presidential races. Yes, a small number of people decide in both.

I disagree about an incentive to vote. Over time it is possible to change the state leans, but it isn't going to happen overnight. It's going to take some work.

Two things that need to be done: 1) getting money out of politics and 2) a move toward a popular vote. Both are currently being worked on. I think if both were done there would be a big difference in how campaigns were run. Then you also have groups like Lawrence Lessig who are raising money to elect candidates to get money out of politics. Also factor in a change in demographics which heavily favors our party (assuming we get immigration reform through).

Going back to the election of senators one point I wanted to make is that the way elections are done now is a lot better than the days when they were elected by the state legislators.

[Takket]

4. Close races

How come none of the close races ever include Kentucky? That race gas been very close and grimes even led the last poll I saw but nowhere in the media an I ever seeing that she has a chance, including this analysis. Why is that?

[davidpdx]

7. Conservative media of course