The Math Of Anti-Democratic Government : US SENATE

[ZombieGak]

The Senate is a vote weighting/dilution scheme that pretends to represent states even though the 17th amendment leaves it up to the people within those states to vote for their senators.

Here are some simple facts how the Constitution has no safeguards against demographic trends...

Population differential between largest and smallest states:
1790.... 12.65 : 1 (VA vs DE)
2004.... 70.86 : 1 (CA vs WY)

Population median...
1790.... 6 states were above, 7 fell below
2004.... 15 states are above, 45 fall below.

Because of this disproportional representation in the Senate all sorts of un- and anti-democratic alignments are possible even if improbable. Here are some numbers that highlight the power of the small states using 2004 US Census numbers:

Senators representing 11.2% of the US population in the 21 smallest states can maintain a filibuster.

Senators representing 16.2% of the US population gets 50% of the seats. Once it was about 23%. With a tie breaker from the vice president, they can pass any legislation.

Senators representing 17.6% of the US population have a majority of 52 votes....

Senators representing 24.0% of the US population can override a filibuster.

Senators representing 29.7% of the US population can ratify a nominee to the USSC.

[jody]

1. Senators from the smallest seventeen states with 7% of the U.S. population

can sustain a president’s veto. As a worst case scenario, 50% of the vote plus one for U.S. senators from the smallest states could mean that about 3.5% of the population could elect senators that could sustain a president's veto.

The plus side of the situation is that it preserves state's rights. Wyoming with about 500 thousand citizens has the same vote as California with about 35 million citizens.

[ZombieGak]

3. thanks for that.....

Doh! I didn't even think to run the veto numbers.

You're correct, using 2004 Census estimates I get Senators representing 7.3177574% of the population can over-ride a presidential veto! :-)

[jody]

5. Not over-ride a veto but sustain a veto. n/t

[ZombieGak]

6. double DOH! !

a mind is a terrible thing to..... misplace.

[HillDem]

2. I thought that was the purpose of the senate

So that small states had a check on the big ones.

[ZombieGak]

4. that's the stated purpose....

But as someone more interested in how PEOPLE are represented instead of imaginary beings called states, we have to acknowledge the Senate is a vote weighting/dilution scheme... illegal on all other levels of government

Since the Senate has also special constitutional responsibilities in ratifying judicial nominees and international treaties... I think we owe it to ourselves to see whether the decisions the Senate reaches have moral legitimacy that comes from support of a majority if citizens.

If not we might rethink the Framer's solution to protecting the small states.

[Yupster]

19. Originally the senate was the states'

foothold in Washington.

The senators were not elected by the people but instead were elected by the state legislatures.

That gave the states a way of making sure things didn't happen against their interests in Washington. If something came up, the legislatures could order their senators to vote against it or even filibuster it.

If a senator refused he's be replaced when his term ended.

The Seventeenth Amendment was a lot more significant than people think it was.

[LiberalInGeorgia2005]

21. Exactly

The house is proportial (53 reps for California and 1 for Wyoming.) The senate was designed to give the smaller states equal representation in one of the two chambers.

[many a good man]

7. What about present?

What pctg of the population has at least one Democratic Senator compared to how many have at least one Republican?

[ZombieGak]

8. that's a tough one...

And it would take a lot more time to caculate than just popping census numbers into spreadsheets. But this may interest you... something I posted a few days ago:

Any given senator is elected every 6 years. So to see how many votes each Party gets, one has to look at any 3 consecutive federal elections.

These numbers show that during the past 3 elections, the Dems have clearly won more votes for their candidates than the GOP has. Yet the GOP is in control... 55 to 44.

------------DEMS------------GOP-------OTHER
2000----20,470,371-----22,198,747---1,606,029
2002----36,788,222-----36,729,792---5,797,467
2004----43,605,968-----39,920,857---2,678,558

TOTAL--100,864,561----98,849,396----10,082,054

Sources:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/senparty.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2002/senparty.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

[jody]

9. Subject to math errors, I believe the following is in the ball park.

States with two Democratic Senators comprise about 41.45% of the population.
States with two Republican Senators comprise about 40.27% of the population.
States with one Democratic Senator and one Republican/Independent Senator comprise about 18.28% of the population.

Since the Independent Senator generally supports Democratic positions, the stats suggest the Democratic Party represents more of the population than does the Republican Party.

Of course I might have made a mistake in crunching the above numbers. :shrug:

[ZombieGak]

16. thanks again......

Trying to figure out just how anti-democratic the Senate not always easy. Yesterday I was trying to compare what percentage of the population got 50% of the seats in the First and Second Congress... and in each case there was an odd number of states. Even if there were an even number, a state can be split.

So I went with median population instead.

[KingFlorez]

10. Equal representation

The Senate is equal representation for each state, while the House is representation based on population. It has it's flaws, but each state does have a votes. No legislative body can full have parity with the population.

[many a good man]

11. Republicans have a big majority of the Senate

But they don't represent a big majority of the population. Republicans can't be allowed to steamroll an ideological appointee to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land.

Democrats have a special obligation to exert their minority rights to the fullest extent under the Constitution.

[ZombieGak]

13. Thomas was ratified by senators repesenting less than 50% of the pop.

At least according to this article: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

I wonder about Roberts and Alito.....

[KingFlorez]

14. Proportional representation

If they used this method for the Senate that would go away, but it's complicated how to get there. If we give each state one directly elected seat then one party list vote that would allocate the remaining seats based on the percentage each party gets.

[ZombieGak]

12. I think we all know the official rationale for the Senate.... but so what!

Saturday June 30, 1787
MR. WILSON: Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States? Will our honest Constituents be satisfied with metaphysical distinctions?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/630.htm

Since I care how CITIZENS are represented... I have no use for such transparent vote weighting/dilution schemes like the US Senate.

[LiberalInGeorgia2005]

22. "or for the imaginary beings called States?"

This I don't get.

The people have their chamber, well now the people have both since the 17th amendment. Why is it so wrong that one chamber let the smaller states have an equal say? It's not like both do it.

[OrwellwasRight]

15. There was a Harper's article on this last year.

It is all true. The Senate is anti-democratic. And you couldn't be more right.

Except that on the other side of the equation is the fact that the Senate is the only thing saving our asses as a country right now. The craziest shit passes the House (so-called "med mal" reform, Health Savings Accounts, Association Health Plans, USA PATRIOT full renewal, and on and on) and it is only thanks to the Senate that this crap does not get to Bush for his signature.

Furthermore, because of redistricting and the safe seats it has created for the Republicans, the Senate is actually more competitive right now. The Dems have a better shot at taking it back than taking the house back.

So I am torn between supporting a non-democratic institution and thanking my lucky stars it is there to save us from DeLay's agenda.

On edit: typo in subject line, oops!

[ZombieGak]

17. we should never thank anti-democtratic institutions......

Have a link to that article?

If an anti-democratic institution accidentally happens to do the right thing what comfort is that? What moral legitimacy do those decisions have?

The very nature of the Senate has impeded progress in the US. Here's a great article on that http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

Better to fight the good fight in the market place of ideas.... bring alienated citizens back into the civic arena... and have some faith in the common sense of ordinary people instead of in anti-democratic institutions.

[OrwellwasRight]

18. Unfortunately, Harper's does not put its articles online.

You have to subscribe the old fashioned way. But if you are really interested, I've never been to a library that didn't carry it.

[Neil Lisst]

20. The Senate was intended to be the cooler house, the stopper.

It is very anti-egalitarian. Some little state with ONE member of the House gets TWO Senators. Those two Senators have a total constitency smaller than most big cities in the US. So the 30 mil plus in California get the same voice as the 1 million in some western state.

It's constitutional and it will never change, so all discussions about the topic are strictly academic. It cannot change because small states would have to vote YES on a constitutional amendment to reduce their power.

It ain't happenin'.

When the founders created the bicameral legislature, they wanted to have the Senate as the cooler house, to avoid the exigencies of public opinion, the excesses of popular opinion in a democratic republic.

Looking at today's House of Reps, and the crazies who run it, who can say they were wrong?

[ZombieGak]

23. you can't imagine a democratic senate?

Are you telling me you can't imagine a representative body that provides a check to the House and yet is democratic?

Yes the Senate, as was slavery, is protected in the Constitution with several poison pills... but if our system is anti-democratic and stands in the way of Progressive reforms... then what alternative do we have but to begin thinking of a long-term strategy to reform it?

Yes we have an amendment process but for all intents and purposes, as you acknowledge, the major features of the Constitution are, for better or worst, set in cement. At some point we have to start rethinking the reform-proof nature of the Constitution because the electoral/political system it's giving us is not morally illegitimate by democratic standards. We gloss over that because Americans have been raised to place the Constitution on a pedestal and bury their democratic instincts. The system the Constitution gives is also unresponsive to the needs of most citizens and is destroying civic culture. During the 1990s voting age population (VAP) participation rates in the US were 140th of 163 nations. As a result the so-called Reagan revolution represented a mere 26% approval of the VAP. Newt's 94 Republican Revolution represented about 19.5-20% VAP approval.

The Framers are held up as oh so wise for providing a system of checks and balances. I can appreciate many of them. But they unwisely failed to include any protections against demographic trends that could make the Constitution more and more reform-proof. It's now clear their formula has given a dwindling minority in small states growing power to thwart all reform. A mere 3.8% of the population in the 12 smallest states can block any amendment. THIS IS INSANE!

If our generation doesn't wake from it's political coma and begin to make the case for democratic values, the Constitution may NEVER be reformed. As for the senate I'd like to see it become a body based on proportional representation though national party elections. Maybe THEN I, as a Progressive, I can finally have my views reflected in the federal government.

[Igel]

24. You're absolutely correct.

After all, why should a minority ever object or try to block the will of the majority. Isn't majoritarianism what it's all about--you have a majority, who cares what the minority wants?

Of course not.

So we have two houses. One is roughly proportional to the majority, if no gerrymandering exists, or partisan gerrymandering cancels itself out. The other is skewed in the direction of one kind of minority or another. We still get a kind of majoritarianism, but one that's much more constrained. And since extirpating majoritarianism in anything reminiscent of a democracy is pretty much impossible, the constraints are what we aim for. The last 50 years in American jurisprudence and politics on the left has been all about reining in majoritarianism.

Suggest modifications to the constraints; but don't suggest abolishing them.