Just a reminder - Senate Repubs don't represent the majority

[ltfranklin]

According to Professor Matthew Shugart from the University of California-San Diego, for the past three election cycles over 200 million votes were cast in races electing our 100 Senators. Republicans won 46.8% of the votes in these elections -- not a majority -- but the Democrats won more votes, 48.4%. Yet the GOP currently holds a lopsided 55 to 44 majority. In 2004, Democratic senatorial candidates won over 51% of the votes cast, yet Republicans won 19 of 34 (56%) contested seats. So the minority party holds a majority of Senate seats.

In fact, the GOP has been over-represented in the Senate in nearly every election since 1958, primarily due to Republican success in low-population, conservative states in the West and South which are given equal representation with high-population states like California. The 52 Senators confirming Clarence Thomas in 1991 represented only 48.6% of the nation's population, showing that a Senate majority can confirm a justice for life even though they represent a minority of voters.

Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process by Steven Hill - ZNet

[wli]

1. gerrymandering in action

Time for proportional representation.

[ltfranklin]

2. Well, the Senate's not supposed to be proportional

The House is supposed to handle that part, the Senate's supposed to be about Representating the State's interests, but I'm tired of hearing Repub Senators spouting off about their supposed majority power when they don't even have a majority of the voters behind them. What they seem to forget is that when they get elected, they're supposed to represent ALL the people of their state, not just the ones who voted for them. Anybody with the least amount of respect for the office would at least make an ATTEMPT to take the wishes of all the voters in their district, not just the ones in their party. Managing to get 51% of the voters in the gerrymandered districts you "represent" seems to mean you can ignore the other 49% that DIDN'T vote for you.

Ah, well, I suppose I'm just being a little idealistic here. The real world says you reward your friends and crush your enemies, even if your "enemies" are your neighbors and, by the way, help pay your salary.

[wli]

6. yes, that's the idea

The original intent was, of course, to make the Senate regional representation. The neofascists would lose with proportional representation, and it's less exploitable in general.

[ISUGRADIA]

3. you can't gerrymander the senate, the boundaries never change

[KBlagburn]

4. Your exactly right.

The "districts" for senators is the state line.

[ltfranklin]

5. Whoops, you're right...sorry.

I got into answering the post about Gerrymandering, and forgot Government 101. But the idea still stands, they're only representing the people of the State that voted for them, and ignoring the ones who didn't. It's a misapplication, I think, of the fundamentals of our Representative government, that the Senators are only representing the wishes of those who voted for them, rather than the entire population of the State.