# The 46 Senate Democrats represent WAY more votes than the 54 Republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 17, 2016, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324 "2016-02-17T09:25:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/21 "2016-02-17T16:25:56Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > There has been some arguing in the threads about Scalia’s death, and the nomination/confirmation of his replacement, along the following lines: > > **Democratic Doper:** “President Obama won the 2012 election fair and square, and he’s still got almost a year left in his term.” > > **Republican Doper:** “Okay, but Republicans won their majority in the Senate fair and square, too–and that 2014 election that gave them control was more recent than Obama’s 2012 reelection.” > > Right off the bat, there was from my POV an obviously bogus element of the latter claim: not only did only 33 of the 100 members of the Senate get elected or reelected in 2014, 17 states–including big blue states like California and New York–had no Senate election at all. > > …So when you’re tempted to describe the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate as “doing the will of the people”, maybe think twice unless you have a shit-ton of chutzpah on hand. (post shortened) **Democratic Doper:** “President Obama won the 2012 election fair and square, and he’s still got almost a year left in his term.” **Republican Doper:** “Okay, but Republicans won their majority in the Senate fair and square, too–and that 2014 election that gave them control was more recent than Obama’s 2012 reelection.” It doesn’t matter how you play fun-with-numbers. The CURRENT makeup of U.S. Senate has a majority consisting of Republicans. The minority is made up of Democrats. Two Senators per state as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Over the centuries, the voters in each individual state selected their representatives from the various political parties. The CURRENT collection of U.S. Senators began in 1975 with Patrick Leahy. The only “bogus element” would be in thinking that 46 is more than 54. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/22 "2016-02-17T16:42:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It only appears non-serious because it’s obviously absurd to demand equal representation for my living room in the Senate. But it’s just as obviously absurd, so far as I can tell, to demand equal representation for Wyoming. Why should Wyoming have just as much say in the Senate as California? Because they’re both states? Sure, and so what? Why should states all have equal say? I guess it seems absurd if you ignore the whole “how the country was founded” thing. It was the compromise for the states to accept a strong federal government and you probably wouldn’t be living in the United States of America if it hadn’t been agreed too. Your living room can make no such boast. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/23 "2016-02-17T16:51:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It only appears non-serious because it’s obviously absurd to demand equal representation for my living room in the Senate. But it’s just as obviously absurd, so far as I can tell, to demand equal representation for Wyoming. Why should Wyoming have just as much say in the Senate as California? Because they’re both states? Sure, and so what? Why should states all have equal say? Damn that stupid constitution again! So inconvenient! Why the hell am I not a dictator, and what’s up with this whole three branches of government? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/24 "2016-02-17T17:10:29Z")
Again, the foundets did not envision California and Wyoming. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/25 "2016-02-17T17:17:09Z")
There’s nothing new about the “why does every state have the same power in the Senate?” debate; the original framers of the Constitution recognized this when they included a clause that says that the only thing that could not be changed in the Constitution (well, the only thing after 1807, anyway) is the right of every state to have at least as many Senators as every other state. Representation in the government of the nation’s people as a whole already exists - or did I misunderstand the reason that we have a democratically-elected (well, sort of) President? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/26 "2016-02-17T17:19:28Z")
So? The principle remains the same. California has 53 Congressman, Wyoming only gets 1. They both get 2 Senators. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/27 "2016-02-17T17:28:31Z")
Well then, it would take _two_ amendments to change the Senate. One to remove the “you can’t change the Senate” clause, one to actually do it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/28 "2016-02-17T17:38:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Why should they have a natural majority? Because they represent all that is wholesome and good? Because rural areas are so grossly overrepresented? The latter. Although it’s not written in stone that rural areas should be Republican, anymore than cities should be Democratic. That’s just how it is now. In the future, that will change. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/29 "2016-02-17T17:40:16Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > SlackerInc, if you think it’s about Democrats “clumping up” in cities, you might want to take a look at my district, the Michigan 14th. Half of Detroit, then it swoops out to another county to pick up the entire city of Pontiac. Putting two “clumps” that far apart into one district plainly makes the case that it _is_ gerrymandering. > > [http://brendalawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/14th-Congressional-District-map.png](http://brendalawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/14th-Congressional-District-map.png) So that there are African-American representatives. We can ungerrymander, but we’d get a 99% white Congress. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/30 "2016-02-17T17:42:13Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Well then, it would take _two_ amendments to change the Senate. One to remove the “you can’t change the Senate” clause, one to actually do it. Actually, it would take a new Constitution. The Constitution is based on a federalist system, where every state voluntarily joins. If you change the basic terms of the contract, then you need a brand new country. Which of course, states would not be obligated to join. So you actually need two different steps; 1. Repeal the Constitution, set all states free to form their own compacts or just be independent, or join Canada or Mexico or what have you. 2. Write a new Constitution that establishes a centralized republic. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/31 "2016-02-17T18:26:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It only appears non-serious because it’s obviously absurd to demand equal representation for my living room in the Senate. But it’s just as obviously absurd, so far as I can tell, to demand equal representation for Wyoming. Why should Wyoming have just as much say in the Senate as California? Because they’re both states? Sure, and so what? Why should states all have equal say? Because that was the only way to form the Union in the first place. And because changing the rules after the fact could rock the Union to its very foundation. But you asked more broadly about the need for regional representation. Can you not think of any reason why a coastal, industrial state would have different needs and desires than an inland, agricultural state? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/32 "2016-02-17T18:40:55Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I have long wanted our national government to be truly national rather than state-based. > > That includes a 1,000+ lower house whose districts are drawn by a non-political agency and geographically centered on logical geographical-economic regions without respect to state borders (which means that a state like Wyoming might have zero districts entirely within its boundaries) and topped off with party lists to match overall proportion of votes New Zealand style. > > Haven’t figured out the upper house yet. Just like the left not understanding you need money to operate the press this not understanding basic history and federalism is a very convenient position to take. It’s not fact or logic based. It’s desired outcome based. You folks have no fear of a powerful central government even though history has show that to be the most dangerous institution yet conceived. If millions of innocents wouldn’t have to suffer sometimes I think it may be good to have a few more reminders why we don’t really want all power derived from the whims of the central government. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > I took a little different tack, looking at the populations of the states and their Senate representation. > > 16 states with a total population of 125,429,808 have 2 Democratic Senators\* > 20 states with a total population of 104,653,543 have 2 Republican Senators > 14 states with a total population of 90,663,241 have a split delegation > > For this purpose, the independents who caucus with Democrats count as Democrats. > > So about 21 million more people are represented by Democratic Senators than Republican ones, but they get 8 fewer Senators to show for it. > > Or you could put it another way: > > The states of Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Alabama have a total population of 38,602,257 and they get represented by 26 Republican Senators. The state of California has a population of 39,144,818 and gets represented by 2 Democrats. > > We all know about the Great Compromise and how the Founders got there. But the result more than 200 years later is a system where the rural states have entirely too much power in the Senate to thwart the will of the more urban states with many more people. You don’t know that. You make the assumption that if a state is 50.1% x and 49.9% y that x represents x+y when in reality the representative for x doesn’t even represent, truly, x. > [@Chronos](#): > > Why should we care about “regional interests”? A region should be important if and only if and exactly to the extent that it contains significant numbers of people. I mean, the region consisting of my living room has no power whatsoever in the Senate. Should it? Of course not, because the population of that region is so low. So if my living room shouldn’t get an equal voice in the Senate, why should Wyoming? You do understand why we have a federal government? Could it be that the US was founded as a federation of sovereign states and that those states AND the individuals within were ceding some power to a central government? The intent wasn’t to shift the concept of where that source of power originally derived to the central government. Stuff like the 10th amendment are strictly redundant. > [@Chronos](#): > > It only appears non-serious because it’s obviously absurd to demand equal representation for my living room in the Senate. But it’s just as obviously absurd, so far as I can tell, to demand equal representation for Wyoming. Why should Wyoming have just as much say in the Senate as California? Because they’re both states? Sure, and so what? Why should states all have equal say? As educated as you are how did you miss civics 101? Too busy doing physics homework in history class? > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Again, the foundets did not envision California and Wyoming. They might not have envisioned California but new states being admitted to the Union wasn’t some mysterious concept. The founders didn’t also envision a ridiculously greedy federal government with no constraints. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/33 "2016-02-17T18:44:06Z")
Everyone is responding to **Chronos** with little more than “Are you stupid? That’s what the rules are! That’s what was agreed upon a quarter-millenium ago! Quit being so stupid…”, which, while certainly factually correct as to the history and current legal status of those rules, doesn’t do much to convince me those are good rules… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/34 "2016-02-17T18:47:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Just like the left not understanding you need money to operate the press this not understanding basic history and federalism is a very convenient position to take. It’s not fact or logic based. It’s desired outcome based. You folks have no fear of a powerful central government even though history has show that to be the most dangerous institution yet conceived. If millions of innocents wouldn’t have to suffer sometimes I think it may be good to have a few more reminders why we don’t really want all power derived from the whims of the central government. Yes and no. The US was born in a time when the unitary state was plenty evil, and we’ve seen even worse evil since then. But there is nothing intrinsically bad about a unitary state as opposed to a federal one, and we see plenty of perfectly good unitary states today. Japan, the UK, France and Italy are all unitary states. That is not to say we should convert-- I think it would be very problematic, at best, to do so. But if we had been born a unitary state, things wouldn’t necessarily be horrible for us. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/35 "2016-02-17T18:56:34Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Everyone is responding to **Chronos** with little more than “Are you stupid? That’s what the rules are! That’s what was agreed upon a quarter-millenium ago! Quit being so stupid…”, which, while certainly factually correct as to the history and current legal status of those rules, doesn’t do much to convince me those are good rules… Not everyone. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/36 "2016-02-17T18:59:43Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Everyone is responding to **Chronos** with little more than “Are you stupid? That’s what the rules are! That’s what was agreed upon a quarter-millenium ago! Quit being so stupid…”, which, while certainly factually correct as to the history and current legal status of those rules, doesn’t do much to convince me those are good rules… Well he didn’t convince me that population numbers should trump regional concerns. If Texas, California and Florida all decided Wyoming should be turned into a strip mine, is that ok with you? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/37 "2016-02-17T19:19:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes and no. The US was born in a time when the unitary state was plenty evil, and we’ve seen even worse evil since then. But there is nothing intrinsically bad about a unitary state as opposed to a federal one, and we see plenty of perfectly good unitary states today. Japan, the UK, France and Italy are all unitary states. That is not to say we should convert-- I think it would be very problematic, at best, to do so. But if we had been born a unitary state, things wouldn’t necessarily be horrible for us. This isn’t about a shift to a unitary state. This is about consolidation of power. Strong central vs balance of powers central. The constitution and the idea of intrinsic individual rights are roadblocks. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/38 "2016-02-17T19:20:17Z")
I think the issue here is that there’s complaints about a system and it seems like we’re either not fully appreciating why the system is the way it is and how some of those things that appear as negatives have some positives–though whether those positives outweigh the negatives is a subject for debate. Or we need to consider a completely different system altogether with consideration for what our modern needs and ability to implement can grant us. Starting with our current system, besides the whole Great Compromise stuff, there is a certain wisdom to balancing the needs of the individual against the state. One of the great concerns of the founders, besides getting everyone to agree on the system, was insulating against tyranny of the majority. The only really way to prevent that is to give some smaller populations over-representation and some larger ones under-representation. Today, the Senate serves to do just this, perhaps to too large of an extent, using the contrast of California and Wyoming as the obvious example. Unfortunately, I don’t really see a great way of addressing that disparity without either combining/breaking-up states or trashing the whole system. OTOH, I feel like the whole point of the Senate is misused. The House should be focused primarily on matters of concern of the people, as they more directly represent the people. Consider that, originally, Senators were appointed by the state governments, they’re intended to represent the interests of the States over the people, which is why it makes sense that they were granted the duties they have, like judicial consent. At a more fundamental level, though, I think the single representative per district and winner-take-all approach is really what kills the system. Some things we can do today are more complex voting systems, things like instant run-offs, single transferable voting, and proportional voting. So, here’s a few thoughts about ways to approach making some changes to the system without completely scrapping the ideas that they’re based on, as if we’re going to do that, I’d do something fundamentally different. For the House, it’s no longer held to 435, it’s just a percentage (perhaps rounded to the nearest 0.1%, or maybe 0.2% to keep the numbers fairly close at 500) based on census data. Further, these voters are no longer assigned to individual districts but to super districts such that each district would have, say, 3-5 total representatives voted on based on a system like STV. So, based on this, California might get 53 reps, so they’d get 11 districts, 9 with 5 reps, 2 with 4, and these would be drawn by computer with the contingent to minimize the total border length (state lines counting for zero), and minimizing individual border lengths (state lines counting equal) and with all districts having representative proportional to their total reps (so, in this example, distrcts 10 and 11 would be 80% the size of the rest). This fixes gerrymandering AND provides for more balanced representation, so a district might go 3-2 for one party, 4-1 if it’s really overwhelming, or even 2-2-1 if there’s a strong Libertarian, Green, or some other party or independent candidate. And for the Senate, I’d do it similarly, expect each state either gets exactly 2% or maybe with a slight adjustment (but not complete) for population and then each state is it’s own super district with, however many senators (3-5) is appropriate. Another reform I would do is that, with modern technology, there’s no need to have all the reps and senators in DC all the time. They should have offices in their states/districts so they have greater access and visibility with their constituents and they can have debates and votes via teleconference, so they only all need to be in DC a few times a year for things like the State of the Union or other important votes. This may not be perfect, but I feel it reasonably addresses most of the grievances made by both parties and independents. It’s no longer a choice of voting for the lesser of two evils, you can vote for who you REALLY want and still have a “back up” if that person doesn’t get enough support, so you’re always choosing the greatest good instead. And if you’re in one of those districts that’s 53-47, so almost half of the people are essentially not represented, you’re much more likely to get at least some representation, which encourages more people to actually vote and candidates will be less polarizing because they’ll find a particular demographic that gets them enough votes and they’ll support them rather than some conglomerated base that doesn’t really fit too many people all that well. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/39 "2016-02-17T19:20:27Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Everyone is responding to **Chronos** with little more than “Are you stupid? That’s what the rules are! That’s what was agreed upon a quarter-millenium ago! Quit being so stupid…”, which, while certainly factually correct as to the history and current legal status of those rules, doesn’t do much to convince me those are good rules… Convince others in your state to petition for a constitutional convention. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324/40 "2016-02-17T19:37:32Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > This isn’t about a shift to a unitary state. This is about consolidation of power. Strong central vs balance of powers central. The constitution and the idea of intrinsic individual rights are roadblocks. I read that 3 times, and can’t figure out what point you are trying to make. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-46-senate-democrats-represent-way-more-votes-than-the-54-republicans/746324.md?page=3)