Political math: 37 > 63. Sens representing 63% of public (195m people) voted for health care reform

[jefferson_dem]

Political math: 37 > 63
21 Jan 2010 09:52 am

As I point out in my article in the current issue, the combination of three forces:
- The original Constitutional compromise giving two Senate seats to every state, large or small;
- The post-Constitutional patterns of population growth, which leave California with nearly 37 million people and Wyoming with just over half a million; and
- The very recent practice of subjecting almost every Senate action to the threat of filibuster, which requires 60 votes to surmount...

.. means that in theory Senators representing only 12% of the U.S. population could block efforts that Senators representing the other 88% support.

In reality, the pattern is not that extreme. The Republican minority in the Senate includes some from highly-populated states -- two from Texas, one each from Florida and Ohio. The Democratic majority includes some from low-population states -- both from Delaware and West Virginia, one each from Alaska and Nebraska.

So in reality, what's the population balance? Counting the new Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the 41 Republicans in the Senate come from states representing just over 36.5 percent of the total US population. The 59 others (Democratic plus 2 Independent) represent just under 63.5 percent. (Taking 2009 state populations from here. If you count up the totals and split a state's population when it has a spit delegation, you end up with about 112.3 million Republican, 194.7 million Democratic + Indep. Before Brown's election, it was about 198 million Democratic + Ind, 109 million Republican.)

Let's round the figures to 63/37 and apply them to the health care debate. Senators representing 63 percent of the public vote for the bill; those representing 37 percent vote against it. The bill fails.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/political_math_36_64.php

[Turbineguy]

1. That 195 million must be

the "overwhelming majority of Americans who do not want health care reform."

[leveymg]

2. Please don't push the Senate Bill. Reconciliation first, then sign it.

Reconciliation -- change the Senate Bill to match the better parts of the House Bill, and restore Medicare for All, drug re-importation, and antitrust -- or get punished by the voters in November.

Passing the present Senate Bill in the House is not a choice - it's political suicide for the Democratic Party.

Reconciliation first. The Reconciliation Instruction drafted by Biden and the White House will put everyone on record as to exactly what they want. A 51 vote passage is the best opportunity for a clean HCR Bill the House Democrats can take home to their constituents in November. A vote on the present Senate Bill is simply unnecessary and likely toxic.

If the House votes on the present Senate measure, this presents yet another opportunity for Blue Dog and GOP obstruction in post-passage committee. It's also not a transparent process.

Think about it.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Nate Silver recommends passing the Senate Bill with "reconciliation sidecar".

To me, that sounds like the least bad of all options.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x148377

[elocs]

4. I don't think many here at DU will be happy with reconciliation and what it can provide.

I don't think it will result in a better bill, but a bill. Also, reconciliation cannot simply be slapped onto anything.

[dkf]

5. Only 39% of the public want democrats to work on the senate bill.

The real story is that 24% of the people have senators who don't represent them and who disrespect what they want.