Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 6, 2011 23:54:42 GMT -5
These arguments are in no particular order.
1. Federal elections give disproportionate power to small rural states, such as those in the west. Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California, and Senatorial seats count toward the total votes in the Electoral College. It's one of the great irritating advantages that Republicans have in Presidential Elections.
2. The Democrats have control of the Senate because only 19 Democratic seats were up for reelection. The Republicans took 6 of them, and successfully defended all 18 of their own seats that were up. If the entire senate had faced re-election, at the same rate, the Republicans would currently hold 60 seats. Admittedly, this isn't a fair comparison, but does show the scale of the Republican victory in the Senate-- it just wasn't big enough to undo the major Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Incidentally, even these two victories present problems for the Democrats moving forward. In 2012 and 2014 the Democrats will have 25* and 20 seats up for reelection while the Republicans will have 10 and 13. In other words, over the next four years, the Democrats have a lot to lose and very little to gain in the Senate.
3. Population is shifting away from the Rust Belt toward the Deep South and the Southwest (which has typically been Republican, but this will probably change as more Latinos get the vote). Moreover, even very strongly Democratic states are still very conservative outside of densely populated areas. The eastern parts of California and Washington, as I understand, are very conservative, as is the southern part of Illinois. True, these regions don't have the population to outweigh the cities in Presidential or Senatorial Elections, but they do still get to elect members of the House.
4. The overall population breakdown is more even than you think it is. If you include Texas in the West, they have more electoral votes and Senate seats than the West Coast. The Deep South has more representation in the Electoral College and in the House than New England. The Great Lakes states do have more representation in the Electoral College and the House than the other Midwestern states, but if Ohio goes Republican it balances out. Even without Ohio, the margin isn't big enough to overpower the advantage that the West and South generate.
5. Finally, if you move beyond representation and look at what the parties actually want to do, the system itself is inclined against progressivism. Progressives, by definition want to use government to do something. Conservatives tend to want to undo something in government (taxes, regulations, maintain laws restricting behavior, etc.) Just so nobody accuses me of over generalizing, let me make it perfectly clear that this isn't always absolutely the case. Anyway, the American government is actively designed not to work. Filibuster rules in the Senate, the difficulty of overcoming a veto, the existence of the Supreme Court-- whose primary purpose is to strike down laws, the Tenth Amendment, etc. all act as barriers to prevent new legislation from being passed and implemented. This may serve a good purpose, but it is still a major obstacle to any liberal Democratic majority wanting to finally bring the United States into the second half of the 20th Century by abolishing the death penalty and establishing access to health care as a civil right.
*Counting Bernie Sanders and Joe Liberman, both of whom are Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
1. Federal elections give disproportionate power to small rural states, such as those in the west. Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California, and Senatorial seats count toward the total votes in the Electoral College. It's one of the great irritating advantages that Republicans have in Presidential Elections.
2. The Democrats have control of the Senate because only 19 Democratic seats were up for reelection. The Republicans took 6 of them, and successfully defended all 18 of their own seats that were up. If the entire senate had faced re-election, at the same rate, the Republicans would currently hold 60 seats. Admittedly, this isn't a fair comparison, but does show the scale of the Republican victory in the Senate-- it just wasn't big enough to undo the major Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Incidentally, even these two victories present problems for the Democrats moving forward. In 2012 and 2014 the Democrats will have 25* and 20 seats up for reelection while the Republicans will have 10 and 13. In other words, over the next four years, the Democrats have a lot to lose and very little to gain in the Senate.
3. Population is shifting away from the Rust Belt toward the Deep South and the Southwest (which has typically been Republican, but this will probably change as more Latinos get the vote). Moreover, even very strongly Democratic states are still very conservative outside of densely populated areas. The eastern parts of California and Washington, as I understand, are very conservative, as is the southern part of Illinois. True, these regions don't have the population to outweigh the cities in Presidential or Senatorial Elections, but they do still get to elect members of the House.
4. The overall population breakdown is more even than you think it is. If you include Texas in the West, they have more electoral votes and Senate seats than the West Coast. The Deep South has more representation in the Electoral College and in the House than New England. The Great Lakes states do have more representation in the Electoral College and the House than the other Midwestern states, but if Ohio goes Republican it balances out. Even without Ohio, the margin isn't big enough to overpower the advantage that the West and South generate.
5. Finally, if you move beyond representation and look at what the parties actually want to do, the system itself is inclined against progressivism. Progressives, by definition want to use government to do something. Conservatives tend to want to undo something in government (taxes, regulations, maintain laws restricting behavior, etc.) Just so nobody accuses me of over generalizing, let me make it perfectly clear that this isn't always absolutely the case. Anyway, the American government is actively designed not to work. Filibuster rules in the Senate, the difficulty of overcoming a veto, the existence of the Supreme Court-- whose primary purpose is to strike down laws, the Tenth Amendment, etc. all act as barriers to prevent new legislation from being passed and implemented. This may serve a good purpose, but it is still a major obstacle to any liberal Democratic majority wanting to finally bring the United States into the second half of the 20th Century by abolishing the death penalty and establishing access to health care as a civil right.
*Counting Bernie Sanders and Joe Liberman, both of whom are Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
