It seems that our political process has a conservative bias

[Ardent15]

The Senate, for example, is biased towards rural, sparsely populated, conservative states. Also, when the Constitution was written, the ratio of largest to smallest state was 12:1. Today, it is 70:1.

The Electoral College also gives more weight to those states by granting two votes for Senators in addition to the votes that Congressional districts represent. 153 electoral votes from the states of the old Confederacy, plus votes from border states and the West, basically ensures a conservative advantage in Presidential elections.

Also biased is the House of Representatives, which is skewed against urban (Democratic) voters. Even if the two parties are tied nationally, the GOP gets 50 more seats than the Democrats.

Finally, state redistricting schemes end up promoting the concentration of Democratic seats and the expansion of Republican districts.

These institutional aspects already make it an uphill battle for liberals in American politics. We've had victories, past and present, in spite of our system, not because of it.

[anonymous171]

1. Maybe we should find a way to appeal to rural peoples?

Or just game the system in our favor. Oh wait, according to some liberals, that would be immoral ("we can't sink down to their level" remember?) :eyes:

[slackmaster]

2. Yes, you are correct

From the perspective of conservatives, rural people, and people in small states, those biases act to prevent a simple majority from imposing its will on them.

I see it as setting a high bar for liberal ideas to be accepted.

[notesdev]

3. The design was deliberate

It prevented the economic colonization of less populated states for the benefit of more populated states.

But none of that matters any longer, since nearly all our representatives and senators now represent money, not people.