Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:40 AM Nov 2012

Republican Congress used to be an Oxymoron

The US Senate is a conservative institution, by design. It empowers land over population, giving equal representation to Wyoming (600 thousand) and California (38 million)

The Senate was designed as a check against the excesses of democracy.

The House of Representatives is designed to represent what "the people" really think. California has 53 Representatives to Wyoming's one. There are a few counter examples, like Rhode Island versus Texas, but in general the party that represents rural interests must have relatively more representation in the Senate than it has in the House.

This has always been the case... until the 1990s. For the last 20 years the House has generally been Republican while the Senate has generally been Democratic.

One word. Redistricting.

The House can be gamed. The Senate cannot. The Senate is pre-gamed by the long-standing unequal divisions of state borders but it can not be manipulated further. The House, however, can be twisted into whatever form State legislatures wish, including promoting the interests of a national Party over the interests of the State itself.

And State legislatures are themselves unequal. Being typically based on the federal model they promote rural interests disproportionately to urban interests.

By concerted national Party effort the natural conservatism of state legislatures can be bootstrapped into an almost permanent congressional majority to the point where the most representative part of the US government, by design, becomes the least representative.

I grew up in a world where the House of Representatives was guaranteed to be liberal, by wide margins, while the Senate and the Presidency were conservative-leaning. (The electoral college is designed to be unrepresentative by incorporating the inequality of the Senate. Wyoming 3EV. California only 55EV.)

The only possible way for the House to be more conservative than the Senate and the Presidency is through manipulation of the fact that the House, alone in the federal government, can be manipulated through creative, biased districting.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Republican Congress used to be an Oxymoron (Original Post) cthulu2016 Nov 2012 OP
. cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #1
Montana's population is 989,000 hfojvt Nov 2012 #2
Thank you. I had switched to Wyoming but forgot the change the names. cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #3

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
2. Montana's population is 989,000
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 12:18 PM
Nov 2012

lower than I thought, although I knew that 600,000 was low.

And it is not the population of those states that makes the Senate Conservative - it is the conservatism of those states that does that.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
3. Thank you. I had switched to Wyoming but forgot the change the names.
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 02:08 PM
Nov 2012

I started with Montana at 1 million, by then switched to Wyoming as an even more extreme example but, as you pointed out (and thank you for that) I changed the numbers without changing the state names.

It is not low population that makes those states conservative. Rhode Island is quite liberal. It is low population density that over-represents their ideology in Congress.

And low population density correlates strongly with republican versus democratic.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republican Congress used ...