I’m tired and busy and sore and don’t feel like coming up with an appropriate and original title for this post or adding any commentary to anything I write.
But Chuck heard this funny little fact on NPR today, a fact with philosophical implications that I’m too tired to decipher:
The 44 Democrat senators represent about 3.5 million more people than the 55 Republican senators do.
Brings a new light to representative government, yes?
This is an intended result. The smaller states did not want to cede control of the new union to the larger states. The only way to get the Delawares of the new country to sign on was to give them an equal voice in at least one portion of the new federal government.
In order to give something to the larger states the lower house was created and divided up according to population.
It actually brings no new light to representative government. This should be old hat to any US citizen.
Something is seriously wrong with a system that produces a disparity like that. I think we need to have representation based on something other than location.
Well sure it’s “old light,” but at the same time it is an awesome disparity. Not “awesome” in the good way.
Whenever I think of the fact that some sheepherder in Wyoming has 50 times the Senatorial influence than I do, I reflect upon the fact that my state is represented by two of the dimmest GOP bulbs (John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson) in the already-dim GOP universe, and am happy to be diluted.
I don’t get over here much. I can’t see anything about my Pablo. Whats the hap?
Hello Lauren,
I’ve been lurking here for a while, and even though I choose a political thread to comment for the first time, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about feminist ones, I swear.
Anyway, about the matter at hands, I’d like to point out that the representativity of the US Senate is not a national oddity. In most bicameral political systems, one of them is designed to withhold power from the majority of the People.
France and Germany are two good examples.
Under the pretense of “protecting” the rural parts of the country, the idea has always been to grant conservatives an effective right to veto too progressive a Congress, should that feature happen.
And it is indeed abnormal if you do not consider conservatism to be the natural direction of politics.
As to how it can be challenged… If you’re interested, I could tell you about the Federalist ponderation of votes in the European Union, which is flawed but intriguing.
of course, there’s also the irony of terming it a “representative” gummint when more folks didn’t vote in the last election than voted for either candidate (similar numbers apply for state elections)….
Not to rain on the parade too much, but what are the numbers for which party actually got the most votes in the last three senatorial elections (covering all 100 Senators)?
Also, I second norbizness. As a fellow Texan, I’m glad for my so-called influence to be diluted right now.
Makes one wonder doesn’t it?
Actually I think the disparity is worse. Since all states get at least two representatives in the house, reps in low population states like Alaska and Wyoming have a smaller constituent to rep ratio then the reps in high pop states. So when you add that, the “problem” gets even worse.
Also remember that the Red / Blue divide is not really based on states, but population centers. Large cities are liberal and as you move farther away from the cities people get more conservative. The states where the overwhelming number of people live in large cities are blue and The states where the overwhelming number of people live in rule areas and small cities are red. (generally speaking)
Politics in states like Illinois are driven by those who live in Chicagoland for example.
OH BTW, this issue is coverd in detail in a great book (IMO) called Political Numeracy: Mathematical Perspectives on Our Chaotic Constitution.
Rick: No, all states get at least one Representative (in 2000, these states were Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming). The grand total works out to about 1 representative per 646,952 people… so Montana (at about 900,000 people) is actually underrepresented in the House… as is South Dakota and Vermont. Alaska and Wyoming get a small break.
Here’s a point of reference: Today, the most populous state of the union (California, pop 35 million) has 70 times the population of the least populous state (Wyoming, half a million). In 1790 it was more like 12 to 1.
I had a knock-down drag-out fight with my sister a few months ago about this very issue, so I’ve thought a lot about it. There are all sorts of things wrong with the usual arguments that people make in favor of this situation. For example, if the point is to make sure that people in sparsely-populated regions of the country don’t have their land and resources exploited by the majorities in the cities, then what about sparsely-populated regions within populous states (like, say, the Owens Valley in California)?
There was an interesting article in Harper’s last year arguing that the Senate should be abolished.
P.S. Hi, I’m new here.
It isn’t just a matter of equal distribution of Senators. When we talk about Representatives, states like California are unfairly disadvantaged; I remember reading some figures once that compared the populations of California and the total of several mountain states; California’s population was considerably larger than that combined total, but it had fewer Representatives than the combined total of the Representatives serving those other states. So there may be _guidelines_ for allotting Representative slots, but they are capped in ways that result in large-population states (predominantly urban, blue states) being underserved.
If one is concerned about representative gov’t, what about the fact that our president only represents half the nation?
Wow, helluva discussion, everybody.
I didn’t actually intend to pass any sort of judgement on those statistics (yet, at least). It’s just interesting, I guess, that if the House really was a reasonably proportional body, then I would expect the House to be a little closer than it is, given how things shake out on a state-by-state basis in the Senate.
I just thought it was a really interesting sort of thing; a kind of mind-blowing realization when I heard it. Probably over the weekend, I’ll try and flesh out something a little more explorative.
I’m getting tired of dinky states dictating terms to the majority of the population. This is not checks and balances: this is putting the thumb on the pan and pressing down hard so that reason goes flying up and out of sight.
One person who opposed this system was Benjarmin Franklin, who is often invoked as a patron saint of conservatism (without much evidence in support). Franklin warned of this variety of tyranny. In recent years, his dire prophecies have come true. Minority rule is preventing national maturation.
The Constitution is wet with Franklin’s tears. I think it is time we dry the document off.
Thank you, Lauren, for raising this issue.
Some analysis of this point, and a related question — is there a similar systematic discrepancy in the House (even though there’s not supposed to be), as well — at Marching Orders:
http://www.marchingorders.org/C1742339614/E950219814/index.html
Come by and weigh in if you like. I’m working on doing the calculation right now.
(Dis-)Proportional representation II
It turns out that the House doesn’t suffer from the same discrepancy; I did the math.