MyDD :: Senate Mandate Perspective

Senate Mandate Perspective

by Natasha Chart, Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:28:22 AM EST

Indeed, the Republicans do have a guaranteed 41 votes in the Senate and as Todd noted at that link this morning, David Gergen is already merrily spinning the notion that this means Obama should take heed that Americans want him to lean towards the center. Which is pundit-speak for moving right. The implication is that the pursuit of legitimacy in a representative government practically demands that Obama should bow to the center right will of the people in the matter.

The, um, ... Senate results should tell him this?

According to the 2007 census estimates, the State of Wyoming, with its two Republican Senators, has less population than the District of Columbia, with no Senator. Indeed, there are 11 states with less total population than Philadelphia's last estimated 1.4 million, and they get two Senators each. And for real representation in the Senate you should also plainly not live in California, where that nearly twelve percent of the nation's total population winds up with one fiftieth of the nation's Senate seats.

If you go through and add it up, leaving aside Minnesota's undecided 1.7 percent for now, only about 49.8 percent of the nearly 306 million people in the United States live in a state where there's even one Republican Senator. Only 24.4 percent live in a state where both seats are held by Republicans.

Taken from the other direction, 48.5 percent of the country's citizenry lives in states where the electorate wants to see only Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents run things in the Senate. Less than a quarter support having only Republicans do so. That's a 2:1 ratio of Democrat:Republican in terms of straightforward statewide mandates for one party or the other in terms of population represented. That leaves the potential public constituency for some sort of centrist (though it could as easily be center left as right, considering the presidential map and the makeup of the House) management of the Senate at slightly over a quarter.

To review, that's about a 2:1:1 ratio for left:center:right, with the cumulative left+center:right ratio of 3:1.

It's true that with our system being what it is, when Obama wants to pass legislation, he has to govern with the Senate as it is. Though if the will of the people matters to you even a little bit, a person might indeed wonder why the media don't put more pressure on Senate Republicans to respect the clear will of the public and legislate more from the left.

But ...

This is a center right country. This is a center right country. This is a center right country. Because what I tell you three times is true, as they say.

Tags: center right nation, zombie narrative (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (2.00 / 1)

Institutions matter though. This is the whole basis for political economy. Who has agenda setting power matters. How we elect our representatives, be it multi-member districts, single member districts, with pluralities or majorities, all affect the policies that get implemented. In Illinois there was just a vote on the constitutional convention and all the media outlets pushed the meme that it was not the institutions that needed to be changed but the people. But the institutions cause us to elect certain people, they enable us to hold people accountable, they motivate how people run for office and the rhetoric they use. I am not sure if it is possible, but I think the key here and I believe what your post helps do is that we need to figure out a way to get the media away from always focusing on the personal and focus on the process and the institutions. In a lot ways this represents the most basic tension between blogs and the traditional media.

by benb on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:42:41 AM EST

How come (2.00 / 1)

no one took Obama's win Illinois in 2004 as a sign Bush needed to move "to the center"

After all Bush did just as good in Illinois that year as Obama did in Georgia...in fact I think Obama did slightly better in Georgia.

Hell, the Republicans lost a Senate seat in a state they won that year...Colorado.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:46:46 AM EST

Re: How come (none / 0)

Beacause they didn't want to?
If Coleman wins, almost half the Republican caucus in the Senate will be from the Couth, which should pretty muc marginalize both groups.

by spirowasright on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Small State Bias (2.00 / 1)

The real divide in the senate is between the low population, mostly rural, states and the high population urbanized ones.

The smaller states have controlled the agenda for a century which is why there are lots of subsidies for agriculture and mineral extraction and few for urban transport, housing and education.

Just 16% of the population controls 50% of the senate seats. Their interests trump party affiliation when home issues are at stake.

I have a chart which shows exactly how this works out in terms of the specific states. You can view it here:

The Small State Senate Bias

---Policies not Politics
Daily Quiet Image

by rdf on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM EST

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

Thanks for this comment. I think part of the basis of the Senate's bias toward large, unpopulous states is to avoid having too much power concentrated in urban centers. It is true that this is the population base of the country, but there is also a physical country which is composed of large tracts of land. The people that live in the large unpopulous tracts of land need to have a voice as well. The real key is to have a strong voice for urban concerns in the White House. Which we have now for probably the first time in living memory.

by the mollusk on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (2.00 / 1)

The difference in population between the small states and the more populous ones wasn't all that great when the country was founded.

As cities have gotten bigger and rural areas emptier the imbalance has only gotten larger. I don't see any way to fix this as far as voting goes, but the senate might take steps to ensure that funding goes where it is most needed.

This would mean playing hardball not only with the GOP members, but with rural Dems as well. For example, much of the South gets much more in federal funding than it pays in taxes and most of this is due to the large amount of military spending concentrated in these states. A threat to this cozy relationship could be used as leverage to improve funding for states like NY which get back only a fraction of what they send to DC in taxes.

Dems seem unwilling to use their power when they have it. Instead of being tough they talk about bi-partisanship. The GOP never makes that mistake when they are in the driver's seat.

---Policies not Politics
Daily Quiet Image

by rdf on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

are you familiar with the work of the Northeast-Midwest Institute? They make many of the same points you are making here. I haven't looked at their website in a long time, but it was great back in 2001 or so.

I think part of what happens with military spending in Southern states is that it becomes essentially a jobs program for depressed areas. I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I wish people would acknowledge this. Plus why is it that we need the expensive, inefficient, and morally questionable military as the backstop for hiring in these areas?

by the mollusk on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

The people that live in the large unpopulous tracts of land need to have a voice as well. The real key is to have a strong voice for urban concerns in the White House. Which we have now for probably the first time in living memory.

The problem with the Senate (especially bad due to only needing 41 votes to block legislation) is compounded by the fact that the electoral college is also biased towards small states.

by Quinton on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

I'm running into the limits of my historical knowledge here, but I think the Electoral College and the Senate exit specifically to give power to the States. In this country power originated with the states, not with the population per se. So even way back in the beginning a state like Kentucky or Tennessee had two Senators - same as New York or Pennsylvania. Except back then the Senators (if I recall correctly) were not elected by popular vote but appointed by state legislatures. So the Senate actually served as a state check on Federal power.

The apparent bias occurs because there are more states with small populations than states with large populations and yet they all get two Senators (and at least three electoral votes).

It may be that it's time to move past a model like this, and in some senses we have, but it's not fair to act as though this is a problem specific to this period in history.

by the mollusk on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:59:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

And the rural areas are so wrong to vote Republican. I hope the Democrats have the good sense to rewrite the farm bill to remove the weighting toward big agribusiness and weight it more towards family farms and ranches. That would win over the rural areas.

And as I told people when I was canvassing, the move towards renewable energy sources is good for rural areas. For wind, solar and biofuels you need land and that's what we have out here. Plus biofuels require rail transport. We also have rail.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Small State Bias (none / 0)

Just 16% of the population controls 50% of the senate seats. Their interests trump party affiliation when home issues are at stake

And, per your numbers, just 11.20% of the population controls 42 senate seats - one more than necessary to block legislation coming to a vote.

Granted, this bloc of 21 states is mixed on a partisan basis--23 democrats to 19 republicans--but it's still an unjust thing for 11.20% of the population to be capable of controlling enough seats to block legislation supported by the other 88.80%.

by Quinton on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

If I learned anything from this past election, no one, anywhere, gives a DAMN what pundits think. They are universally ignored except by pundits and to make fun of on blogs. They are the most useless identifiable groups of human beings in society.

Who, in their right mind, actually thinks that a pundit or pundits will have one iota of effect on an Obama administration?

Scy

by scytherius on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST

Democrats (none / 0)

"... no one, anywhere, gives a DAMN what pundits think ..."

Except elected Democrats. This is what worries me.

by Natasha Chart on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

38% of America is represented by GOP Senators (none / 0)

And that's if Norm Coleman holds onto his seat. That's hardly a mandate for centrist government.

Assuming Norm wins:

48.5% of Americans are represented by two Dem Senators, or a Dem and a Dem-leaning Independent.
24.4% of Americans are represented by two GOP Senators.
27.1% are represented by one of each. So split that 50-50 between the parties: 13.55% to each.

Dem: 48.5% + 13.55% = 62.05%.
GOP: 24.4% + 13.55% = 37.95%.

If Franken wins, that would change to

Dem: 62.9%
GOP: 37.1%

by RT on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM EST

Re: 38% of America is represented by GOP Senators (none / 0)

This is obviously correct, but I don't think it's a helpful way to frame the argument. The Senate, by its nature, will always give undue power to states with small populations. I don't think this is an accident. I think the real issue is that Obama will have to convince only one Republican Senator (assuming he holds the Democrats) in order to make sweeping changes. But this hardly qualifies as a center-right meme.

I watched a little bit of Gergen on AC360 last night and I think he honestly was just looking for something to say. His heart didn't seem to be in it. But they pay that guy to say things, and so that's what he does.

by the mollusk on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

Gergen is of course one of the more astute political observers in the country having worked for democratic and republican presidents alike. He usually knows what he is talking about...

by obama4presidente on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

So, for how many of the past 8 years (or the past 60 years for that matter) did the Democrats not have at least 41 votes in the Senate?

None of them, you say?

So I guess the Republicans took that as a cautionary instruction to govern from the center, right?

Elections have consequences.

One consequence is that the deep South from South Carolina to Texas, with two majority party Senators out of 14, is likely to be pretty much irrelevant in the Senate for the next two years. Jim Martin might have ameliorated that a bit. Too bad.

by admiralnaismith on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

I had the same thought, but the difference is that Bush was unwilling to compromise and so had a very difficult time moving significant legislation through Congress. Except when he could play the fear card, that is. There was much gnashing of teeth about the "Gang of 14" and whatnot, but in the end, Bush wasn't interested in working with the Democrats and so wasn't able to move many pieces of legislation the way he would have liked. This is part of the reason he is a failed President. This should be a lesson for Obama.

by the mollusk on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (2.00 / 3)

Climate Salvation
Universal Healthcare
Socialist Economy

those are strong center right positions I am eager for Obama to tackle.

by MNPundit on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

The pundits' "concern" is noted...

I wonder if the pundits in 1980 were "concerned" that Reagan would take things too far right?

If they were, Reagan didn't listen, and he was very successful at severely damaging the country for 30 years...

I don't think Obama gives a flying fart what the pundits say about him... He speaks directly to the American people...

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST

He cares what the American people think (none / 0)

and if the American people don't like progressive ideals, he'll move to the right. If they like what he's doing, he'll keep doing it.

I do think the pundits are half right. I do think we were a center right country for a long time and we shifted across the center line to the left last month.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senate Mandate Perspective (none / 0)

Interestingly enough, the percentage of Democratic representation in the House and Senate is roughly equivalent.

Aryeh Teitelbaum

by ATeitelbaum on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:18:31 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.