Some more numbers on the Senate's rural bias:
If all Senate seats were up at the same time and we assume D pres states go D down-ballot, Dems would have to win a national landslide of ~19 points to control a supermajority. Reps would just need to win by just 2(!) for 67 seats.
If all Senate seats were up at the same time and we assume D pres states go D down-ballot, Dems would have to win a national landslide of ~19 points to control a supermajority. Reps would just need to win by just 2(!) for 67 seats.
If you order the states by their partisan leans, the 67th seat for Democrats falls somewhere between Mississippi (R+19) and Missouri (also R+19), whereas the 67th seat for Republicans is between Nevada (D+1) and VA (D+2).
The thing about the stupid "We're a republic, not a democracy!" comments is that republics are supposed to have indirect **representation** for voters — and under no reasonable national parameterization can you call what the Senate is doing today "representation."
There is no justifiable argument in 2020 for defending a voter in WY having 40x as much power as a voter in CA. That's way beyond the pale of what our founders ever envisioned. The largest mismatch in 1787 was like 6x — and with no urban v rural factions
https://twitter.com/DiracWinsAgain/status/1308063666810413056
So much of right-leaning political thought on our electoral institutions is premised upon the ideas that (a) the framers knew what they were doing and (b) that therefore we shouldn't question them — a view they certainly would not have endorsed
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1308063901347700738?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
