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

Tanuki

(14,920 posts)
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:10 PM Feb 2017

The senators who opposed DeVos represent 36 million more people than those who supported her.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-senators-who-opposed-devos-represent-36-million-more-people-than-her-supporters-do-4705655a2bc7#.h7nf3kw1l

....."The 50 senators who opposed DeVos represent 179,381,386 people, while the 50 senators who supported her represent only 143,064,962 individuals.
ThinkProgress calculated these numbers using 2016 population estimates from the U.S. Census. In states where both senators supported DeVos, we allocated the entire state’s population to the “FOR” column. Likewise, in states where both senators opposed her, we allocated their state’s entire population to the “AGAINST” column. In states where the two senators split their votes, we allocated half of the state’s population to “FOR” and half to “AGAINST.”
You can check our work here.
The most populous state in the union is California, with 39,250,017 residents. The least populous is Wyoming, with 585,501. That means that a voter in Wyoming has more than 67 times as much representation in the Senate as a voter in California.
And that’s how we got an Education secretary who doesn’t know very basic things about education."
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The senators who opposed DeVos represent 36 million more people than those who supported her. (Original Post) Tanuki Feb 2017 OP
LOL !!!!!!!!! pangaia Feb 2017 #1
Would have to change the Constitution madville Feb 2017 #2
how exactly is that equal? Skittles Feb 2017 #6
Each state is considered it's own entity madville Feb 2017 #9
It makes a little more sense Mariana Feb 2017 #10
'mazin', ainnit? Stinky The Clown Feb 2017 #3
Total outrage! smirkymonkey Feb 2017 #4
get used to permanent minority rule. nt TheFrenchRazor Feb 2017 #5
Wow.. damn the fascist minority Cha Feb 2017 #7
It's become increasingly obvious that the US government system is stacked against mnhtnbb Feb 2017 #8
It isn't called the United STATES for nothing. The Senate, the Upper House jmg257 Feb 2017 #11
For further education: the Penrose Method of fairly allocating voting weights muriel_volestrangler Feb 2017 #12

madville

(7,412 posts)
2. Would have to change the Constitution
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:59 PM
Feb 2017

It will be a long time (not in any of our lifetimes) before you find enough states willing to give up a Senator to even things out. Roughly 30 states would have to give up one of their Senators and see that vote given to large states like California, Texas, Florida and New York.

The entire point of the Senate is that the states have equal power and representation regardless of population.

Skittles

(153,193 posts)
6. how exactly is that equal?
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:10 AM
Feb 2017

maybe it served a purpose back in the day but now with instant communication - no, it's fucking BULLSHIT and it's giving us GARBAGE like DEVOS

madville

(7,412 posts)
9. Each state is considered it's own entity
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 03:12 AM
Feb 2017

with equal representation. The fix is to change the Constitution or expel some states, neither of which is likely to happen.

Each state has equal standing in the Senate, it's the way it will always be.

Mariana

(14,860 posts)
10. It makes a little more sense
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 05:45 AM
Feb 2017

when you remember that originally, Senators were not required to be elected by the people. They were mostly supposed to represent the interests of their state's government.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
4. Total outrage!
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:15 PM
Feb 2017

I don't know how much more of this I can take. I don't know how much more of this our country can take.

mnhtnbb

(31,402 posts)
8. It's become increasingly obvious that the US government system is stacked against
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:21 AM
Feb 2017

true democratic values, i.e., one person one vote representation.

That's one of the reasons I am feeling so hopeless about the future of the country.

The number of electors in the Electoral College is determined based upon the number of senators and representatives for a state, which
is how it gets so biased right from the start.

We are well and truly fu*ked for more than a generation, I believe. And since I'm 66, I am not expecting to see this nightmare
that has come to be as a result of the last election end before my life runs out--unless there is a real revolution.
I mean in the streets, seizing power, all out civil war.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
11. It isn't called the United STATES for nothing. The Senate, the Upper House
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 06:34 AM
Feb 2017

Represented the States' interest, not the peoples'.

Thats what the House of Reps is for.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,361 posts)
12. For further education: the Penrose Method of fairly allocating voting weights
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:02 AM
Feb 2017

for representative bodies with uneven constituencies.

The Penrose method (or square-root method) is a method devised in 1946 by Professor Lionel Penrose[1] for allocating the voting weights of delegations (possibly a single representative) in decision-making bodies proportional to the square root of the population represented by this delegation. This is justified by the fact, that due to the square root law of Penrose, the a priori voting power (as defined by the Penrose–Banzhaf index) of a member of a voting body is inversely proportional to the square root of its size. Under certain conditions, this allocation achieves equal voting powers for all people represented, independent of the size of their constituency. Proportional allocation would result in excessive voting powers for the electorates of larger constituencies.

A precondition for the appropriateness of the method is en bloc voting of the delegations in the decision-making body: a delegation cannot split its votes; rather, each delegation has just a single vote to which weights are applied proportional to the square root of the population they represent. Another precondition is that the opinions of the people represented are statistically independent. The representativity of each delegation results from statistical fluctuations within the country, and then, according to Penrose, "small electorate are likely to obtain more representative governments than large electorates." A mathematical formulation of this idea results in the square root rule.

The Penrose method is not currently being used for any notable decision-making body, but it has been proposed for apportioning representation in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly,[1][2] and for voting in the Council of the European Union.[3][4] Other bodies where the Penrose method could be appropriate include the US Presidential Electoral College and the Bundesrat of Germany.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method

Of course, with 2 senators per state, and thus a split vote possible, the Penrose method may not be the mathematically fair way of weighting the votes. But, just to see, I took ThinkProgress's spreadsheet, and gave each senator a vote proportional to the square root of their state population. And the 'against DeVos' vote wins (117,337 to 108,394). I also checked out the overall Senate Republican v. Democratic+Independent balance, and it's Republican 110,409, Dems+Ind 115,322. So by that method, the Senate ought to be Democratic (very narrowly - it would just need a seat from a state the size of Missouri or larger to switch from Dems to Repubs to give Republicans control).
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The senators who opposed ...