Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Am I the only one who thinks the Senate is biased towards states where few liberals live?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:43 PM
Original message
Am I the only one who thinks the Senate is biased towards states where few liberals live?
Look at states like Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Indiana-not exactly bastions of liberalism. And some of our most powerful "Democratic" Senators are from those states!

The same issue is with the Electoral College. Even if a Democrat overwhelmingly wins the popular vote, it's because of the states that cast the most popular votes, not the Electoral College.

Thus, the SYSTEM is biased towards conservative and "centre-right" politicians.

The People's body, the House of Representatives, which is a more accurate representation of America, is more reliable than the Senate. Gee, what a shock!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well to be honest the bias is intentional and coincidental at the same time
The intent was to balance power between urbanized populous states and rural low population states. We all know that of course

However the coincidence is that now at least the majority of low population density rural states are right wing oriented, quite probably because of a number of factors ranging from lack of cosmopolitan influences as well as reliance on agriculture and ranching etc. Why farmers and ranchers dislike the central government that bales them out so much I have no idea but they do.

I don't see a realistic way to address the latter without upending the former, short of equalizing state populations by changing boundaries - and how much likelihood is there of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keith the dem Donating Member (587 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Look at New Jersey, a mostly blue state
We have have the highest taxes...but the main reason for that is that we get the lowest return on federal taxes, only about 50 cents on the dollar. Many of those red states get many times what the pay into the federal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. I've thought the same for quite awhile. IMO the Electoral College should
be abolished ASAP. And constant redistricting should not a possible for means of garnished votes for a particular party. Our system needs to be updated for for the 21st century, but can you imagine that ever being done... And, I'm really fed up with hearing about the familiar senators blocking this and that, almost consistently conservatively biased. I still often wonder why we need the Senate. IMO Representatives from the House would be more reflective and fair. Imagine the cost savings if no Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. We don't need the Senate. THEY need the Senate.
By them, I of course mean the conservative minority and corporate interests who want to uphold the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yep, the system is rigged by default IMO. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I think we need instant run-off and popular vote presidential elections
it is repulsive that millions of people's votes do not count merely because they cross some invisible geographic line that puts them in a box with others with whom they share little or no interests or philosophy.

I would also like to see proportional representation so that a spectrum of political opinion is represented - because this would be more representative of the American people.

the other option would be for CA to split into three states, with electoral college votes for each state. that would help to more accurately reflect the governing philosophy of the majority as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. AGREE!!! All excellent points!!! Some don't vote because they think their
vote doesn't count, and the way the current system is/works, it's no wonder they feel that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Senate is biased toward lower population, rural states,
since all states get only 2 Senators.

Rural states tend to vote Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Yah the bias is Rural. Rural vs. Urban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Federalist #62 (Madison) talks about the states representation in the Senate.
Edited on Mon Feb-22-10 03:56 PM by Jim__
FWIW:

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

more ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Of course they are biased against them. It's intentional.
The House of Reps is meant to represent the proportional populations of the states. The Senate is supposed to represent every state equally regardless of population.

I'm beginning to lean toward nixing the Senate. I think time has proven that legislating for tumbleweeds is a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. More I look at it the more I think we need to nix the Senate as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Yes, if you look carefully at what is happening.
The less populated, more rural states tend to be right wing. The more urban, population center intensive states tend to be liberal. The Senate has come to overly represent the rightwing states, as the House has come to overrepresent the liberal states.

HOWEVER...

What throws that otherwise decent check and balance off? The terms of office. A senator is in DC for six years, three times longer than a Representative does (two years). Ergo, when it's all said and done, the right wing is overly represented in Congress.

This is very wrong and needs to be addressed somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. It is also much more expensive to run a Senate Campaign
5x more expensive. So you get either rich Senators or Senators who are going to make rich people happy and give them their money. Of course lots of small donations can offset that, but it is an uphill battle.

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=215
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's rather outdated
I did think the Senate should remain, just to keep some checks and balances in place, but I've changed that view now. It's very undemocratic because the representation is so unbalanced. I think we should get rid of the Senate and reform the House by using mixed member proportional representation, that would create more competition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
14. 13 vs 50
The problem you are really seeing is that the system was set up when there were 13 colonies. The disparity of the senate wasn't nearly as big then. The largest was Virginia, the smallest, Rhode Island (IIRC). The VAST majority of states added since then were low population states, which has created a huge disparity of representation in the senate. Other than Texas, Florida, and California, the other 34 states are fairly thin in population. By almost any measure you'd only consider 5 or so of the 34 as "moderately" populated.

There are only 13 states that make it into double digits in House seats. Only 5 have more than 19. Conversely, there are 7 states with a single congressman. 24, nearly half, have 6 or less. 7 states represents roughly 45% of the population and yet obviously only have 14% of the senate.

Furthermore, the concern was predominately a "big state, small state" disparity with some of the concern coming from the southern states worried that the more populous north would gain an uneven balance. But the large states vary widely in geographic and political variation. No one would claim that Tx, Fl, Ca, and Ny have much in common at all.

The system is broken and really needs to be fixed. Unfortunately it is all but impossible to fix this since "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". Even by an amendment, this can't be altered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. You would think ...
that as they brought in states, they would have had the sense to make a constitutional amendment that, at the very least, if a state has only one friggen representative, then it can only have one senator ...

Not a snowballs chance in heck of that now ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Lots of hero worship
For all the hero worship that goes on with the original authors of the constitution, I can think of several things I would have changed in the original. Amongst the many, a more clear statement of the peoples rights to the natural resources of the country. And there was little thought given to the expansion of the country into western lands and the relationship to the existing natives. But also, the issue of inclusion of new states should have had some greater thought, as well as issues of the ability of states to LEAVE the union.

And for all of their intent, their system for regulation of the military just hasn't worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. The Senate Is "Biased" Toward the Corporate Bosses Who Bribe Them
Stupid rednecks in square states are just tools to be used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why did the Founding Fathers hate liberals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC