Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   American Democracy: All you need to do is get 12 million more votes than your rivals, and you can get fewer Senators   ( theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Democrats, United States Senate, United States, seats, Election, statistic showing Democrats, voter suppression tactics, Senate  
•       •       •

3361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2018 at 7:25 PM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



412 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
5 days ago  
This isn't going to change unless something happens Constitutionally.

Or, more liberals could move to redder states.

I, for one, would really like some help.

/district went 86% Trump
 
5 days ago  
*not just redder states, but redder districts in blue states as well.
**supersaturation of voters in cities is what makes gerrymandering so effective
***consider the electoral college as national gerrymandering
 
5 days ago  
Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming Vermont have as many seats as California Texas, despite the latter having more than 60 45 times the population.

img.fark.netView Full Size


Before we do something stupid, we need to remember it cuts both ways.
 
5 days ago  
Because we only reelect 1/3rd of the Senate at a time. Geez.
 
5 days ago  

Descartes: Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming Vermont have as many seats as California Texas, despite the latter having more than 60 45 times the population.

[img.fark.net image 618x410]

Before we do something stupid, we need to remember it cuts both ways.


I'm ok with fixing systemic flaws in the most undemocratic of processes
 
5 days ago  

dv-ous: Because we only reelect 1/3rd of the Senate at a time. Geez.


Congrats on missing the point so perceptively
 
5 days ago  
Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme
 
5 days ago  

doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme


A function that gives representation to empty land over people. Fine system.
 
5 days ago  
Somebody mention this to Trump. Should cheer him up to know he losing big time excepting for the gimmicks.
 
5 days ago  

HedlessChickn: supersaturation of voters in cities is what makes gerrymandering so effective


Gerrymandering doesn't effect Senate races. You're thinking House districts.
 
5 days ago  

doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme


No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.
 
5 days ago  
The short version...

Nate Silver:
'Democrats currently lead the popular vote in the U.S. House by about 6 million votes or 6% of the vote. Likely to rise to around 8 million votes and 7-8% once all votes are counted.

The final Rasmussen Reports poll said REPUBLICANS would win the popular vote.'
 
5 days ago  
Democrats got millions more votes - so how did Republicans win the Senate?

Because WOOD AND ROCKS.
 
5 days ago  
The whole point of the Senate is state representation at the Federal level
 
5 days ago  

Descartes: Before we do something stupid, we need to remember it cuts both ways.


No, it doesn't.  The cumulative totals are what's relevant.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


Yes, because the middle class, environment, world leadership, and cost of living have been doing SOOOOOO great under minority racist rule.
 
5 days ago  

Gubbo: dv-ous: Because we only reelect 1/3rd of the Senate at a time. Geez.

Congrats on missing the point so perceptively


He isn't wrong. The structure of the Senate is incredibly skewed toward white, rural states, but the Democrats' outsized margin owes to the seats in contention this cycle. The fact that the race in the most populous state in the country featured two Democrats and no Republicans also contributes; normally a CA Senate election would see the Democrats run up a margin of 2-3m, this time it's well over 6m and will probably top 7m.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


No, the alternative is what we have now. Which is decidedly not worse.
 
5 days ago  
The Senate was never intended to provide proportional representation. If that needs to change then the argument must be for amending the Constitution, because that is required.

Originally Senators were not even selected by voters of the states but by the state governments themselves, so perhaps that could be incorporated into an argument for an amendment.

However, we already have a body intended to provide representation proportional to state populations and that is the House of Representin'. The problem there is not that it is not providing adequate representation based upon state population but that partisan gerrymandering has completely skewed the way that it represents constituent interests.
 
5 days ago  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

Descartes: Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming Vermont have as many seats as California Texas, despite the latter having more than 60 45 times the population.

[img.fark.net image 618x410]

Before we do something stupid, we need to remember it cuts both ways.


It might cut both ways, but it doesn't cut both ways equally.  Compare the population of blue districts to red districts, or blue states to red states, and you'll see that conservative areas are given grossly more political weight than their populations warrant.
 
5 days ago  

doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.


What it's "supposed" to do doesn't really matter much. The real question is do we think what it is doing is a fair part of our political system?

I for one don't.
 
5 days ago  
I'm sorta of 2 minds about this. The senate is set up to be the representation of the states. Although I understand the arguments about nationwide representation, that is really what the house is for.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


Like the past two Republican presidents losing the popular vote yet still winning the WH?

The EC was never designed to provide balance. It was designed to protect the interests of wealthy Southern planters from States where there were millions of inhabitants, but only small pockets of those eligible to vote.
 
5 days ago  

Albino Squid: Gubbo: dv-ous: Because we only reelect 1/3rd of the Senate at a time. Geez.

Congrats on missing the point so perceptively

He isn't wrong. The structure of the Senate is incredibly skewed toward white, rural states, but the Democrats' outsized margin owes to the seats in contention this cycle. The fact that the race in the most populous state in the country featured two Democrats and no Republicans also contributes; normally a CA Senate election would see the Democrats run up a margin of 2-3m, this time it's well over 6m and will probably top 7m.


That's only because those republican strong holds are running all the educated people that want to be successful at something more than selling cars out of their states
 
5 days ago  

Badmoodman: [img.fark.net image 633x547]


That's got to be an error
 
5 days ago  

jaytkay: HedlessChickn: supersaturation of voters in cities is what makes gerrymandering so effective

Gerrymandering doesn't effect Senate races. You're thinking House districts.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


The alternative is farmland running roughshod over the rest of the country.
 
5 days ago  

Gubbo: A function that gives representation to empty land over people. Fine system.


Rhode Island has more EVs than Alaska.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


Citation needed that having cities where the majority of the population lives having more of a say in the country is much worse than our current situation where the minority of the population is taking away rights from people and running this country into the ground.
 
5 days ago  

nquadroa: BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.

No, the alternative is what we have now. Which is decidedly not worse.


Sigh, that's supposed to say decidedly worse. The electoral college does nothing but disenfranchise the people of America because representation in the house hasn't been adjusted in 90 years. We could easily fix it by expanding the House based on current population levels but the yokels decided that land should get votes and not the people.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.


Those densely populated cities know what's best for the rest of the country and senate representation should be adjusted to account for this indisputable fact.
 
5 days ago  
sounds like yall should invade a state and flip it.

Get 50k of your friends together and take over a town in North Dakota or Wyoming.

Dont ignore fly over country, invade it.
 
5 days ago  
I think the way we appoint federal judges and the Supreme Court needs to be revamped. If one party holds on to the Senate despite the fact that more American people voted for the other party, it's giving that minority party total control of the legislative branch.

I do like that the concept of the Senate is to give smaller states a say. I'm fine with that for law making purposes, only.

But, I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Maybe go back to a 2/3 or go to a 3/4 majority needed to be seated for life. No nuclear option when it involves stacking the courts in favor of one party.
 
5 days ago  
Does anyone know why uncapping the House currently at 435 to some number more proportional doesnt seem to come up at all?
 
5 days ago  

machodonkeywrestler: I'm sorta of 2 minds about this. The senate is set up to be the representation of the states. Although I understand the arguments about nationwide representation, that is really what the house is for.


I'm not really seeing anymore why the states have to have representation specifically.

When is the last time this was required, and what result?
 
5 days ago  

Descartes: Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming Vermont have as many seats as California Texas, despite the latter having more than 60 45 times the population.

[img.fark.net image 618x410]

Before we do something stupid, we need to remember it cuts both ways.


This is the most both sides post I've seen in a while.

Yes it helps Dems  in a couple circumstances but it largely benefits republicans.
 
5 days ago  
Altering the nature of Congress is what's needed here.  I don't see any reason to have a bicameral legislature in this day and age, and I would advocate for an STV system for the legislature.  But I'm willing to hear other methods of proportional representation out, I'm not married to the STV notion after all.

/This, of course, would require a constitutional amendment (probably the lengthiest amendment in our history) and in the current climate is practically impossible.
 
5 days ago  
Here's a radical farking concept, most votes wins, period.

Fark your districts and that archaic farking electoral college. How about you get your system into the 21st century.
 
5 days ago  

squirrelinator: Does anyone know why uncapping the House currently at 435 to some number more proportional doesnt seem to come up at all?


They passed a law against adding more members to the house.
 
5 days ago  
We're the United States of America, not the United Populations of America. This is why the popular vote doesn't mean shiat, and never has.
 
5 days ago  

BMFPitt: Gubbo: A function that gives representation to empty land over people. Fine system.

Rhode Island has more EVs than Alaska.


Selective quoting to ignore that I was talking about the Senate and you switched it to the EC. How very dishonest of you
 
5 days ago  

HedlessChickn: This isn't going to change unless something happens Constitutionally.

Or, more liberals could move to redder states.

I, for one, would really like some help.

/district went 86% Trump


Or you could move somewhere that doesn't suck ass... unfortunately, Colorado is full. ;)
 
5 days ago  

Wonktnod: BobBoxBody: No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.

Those densely populated cities know what's best for the rest of the country and senate representation should be adjusted to account for this indisputable fact.


Yes. The minority of rural scarcely populated people know whats better for the cities.... Hmm, you know that sounds a silly argument when you turn it around
 
5 days ago  

whidbey: Democrats got millions more votes - so how did Republicans win the Senate?

Because WOOD AND ROCKS.


Democrats won 23 out of the 35 seats up for election.
 
5 days ago  

squirrelinator: Does anyone know why uncapping the House currently at 435 to some number more proportional doesnt seem to come up at all?


It doesn't come up because the party in charge doesn't want better representation for the people.
 
5 days ago  

BobBoxBody: doglover: Gubbo:

The Senate is SUPPOSED to give power to the minority of the population. That's its function.

What's a systemic flaw is the EC, which does the same thing but for the executive branch, which is not just system breaking but also unAmerican in the extreme

No, it's also meant to prevent densely populated cities/states from being able to run rapshod over the rest of the country.  It's not perfect but the alternative is much worse.


Yes, how blessed we are to have America's political future dictated to it by people who struggle with the concepts of indoor plumbing and electricity.
 
5 days ago  

Tarl3k: HedlessChickn: This isn't going to change unless something happens Constitutionally.

Or, more liberals could move to redder states.

I, for one, would really like some help.

/district went 86% Trump

Or you could move somewhere that doesn't suck ass... unfortunately, Colorado is full. ;)


And be one more D vote in a place that already has an over abundance of D voters?

That would be entirely antithetical to what needs to be done.
 
5 days ago  
What's worse, the majority of the population in control of the Senate, or where we are heading with a tiny minority of the population controlling the Senate?

The latter is clearly worse.
 
5 days ago  

Tarl3k: HedlessChickn: This isn't going to change unless something happens Constitutionally.

Or, more liberals could move to redder states.

I, for one, would really like some help.

/district went 86% Trump

Or you could move somewhere that doesn't suck ass... unfortunately, Colorado is full. ;)


Colorado isn't full, Denver and its metro area is full.  The rest of the state doesn't look appealing to most decent people.  There's very little air there and a lot of faithheads.

I'm still thinking of farking off to Seattle soon, did some research last night and I think I can afford it.  Just gotta find a job and a place to stay.
 
Displayed 50 of 412 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report