MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Pundits Gripe Over Meaningless Senate 'Popular Vote'

To the extent that this is even a thing, it's no surprise the Democrats won it, since they won most of the seats that were up yesterday.

I've been seeing this argument a lot last night and this morning:

The biggest problem with this sort of analysis is that the Democrats...won most of yesterday's Senate races. No, seriously: If the Senate consisted solely of the states that elected senators yesterday, the Democrats would have a majority of legislators to match their majority of votes. The reason the Republicans wound up gaining seats is because most of those Democratic victories came in states they already held. If you really want to compare the total number of senators each party has to the number of votes those senators received, you'd need to bring in a bunch of ballots cast in 2014 and 2016 too.

Paramount PicturesParamount PicturesBut that would be a pointless exercise, because the Senate (and the House) are not elected by a single national "popular vote." Legislative elections are not presidential elections. The U.S. does not hold one big race between a generic Democrat and a generic Republican to determine which party should control each chamber. It holds individual races between individual candidates, each with his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Each race also has its own dynamics—for example, how close it is likely to be—that can increase or decrease turnout for reasons largely unrelated to national patterns. (The Senate figures are further distorted by the fact that in California, both candidates on the ballot this year were Democrats. So even if you voted against the incumbent there, you go into that "votes for Democrats" pile.)

It would be one thing if this were just a silly bit of post-election spin, but it speaks to a deeper rot in the way many people look at our politics. For all the partisan sorting we've seen over the past few decades, there still is a fair amount of regional variation in the parties. One way those centrist northeastern Republican governors win is by distancing themselves from the national GOP. You see something similar among red-state Dems like West Virginia's Sen. Joe Manchin. (West Virginia voters in general sometimes feel like they're trying to will into existence a populist party that isn't beholden to either of the big national organizations.) Those relatively independent-minded politicians are joined by a growing number of registered independents in the electorate—and no, those voters aren't just a bunch of "closet partisans." To pretend that we were simply watching two national races last night is to erase an immense amount of American variety. In the process, you just feed the false idea that only two political options are possible.

Photo Credit: Paramount Pictures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dillinger||

    Mark Copelovitch should be embarrassed and shunned for stupidity.

  • ||

    Yeah, I felt the article was a lot of words to convey this message.

  • ||

    1) You shoulda heard The Young Turks and Cenk and some other black chick talk about...what else, racism. It was astounding. I listened for 35 seconds and went to read Beccaria to clean myself.

    2) NH went blue. Isn't that place the last great hope for libertarians and their moment?

    3) Mandatory politics & government class for all.

    Popular vote = potential for tyranny of the majority. I know. A concept the left can't seem to grasp.

  • Tony||

    You people with this crap talking point. In most cases either the majority gets its way or the minority does. Why should the minority get to have all the tyranny? And which ones? The ones that agree with you, perhaps?

  • ||

    /hands Tony a bib.

    You're babbling.

    IT'S YOUR SIDE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

  • ||

    Lemme understand how the progressive left has shifted in their thinking since 2016 by using an analogy.

    'I know I killed that person but you would too! It doesn't matter I did the deed because you could do it too.'

    Some variation thereof.

    Again. This kind of sloppy sophistry is why the Greeks invented logic. They musta have seen Tonyopoulus et al and concluded, 'we gotta do something about this retardation. I just can't anymore.'

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    So Tony - are you actually saying that you agree with the stupidity that was the point of this article?

    Because the "popular Senate vote" concept is terminally stupid. As in the people that are bringing it up need to be put in a group home before they accidentally harm themselves.

  • Tony||

    I know that the one national election we have the current president was explicitly rejected my a majority of the nation's voters. The House often goes the same way. This article happens to make a fair point. My question is simply why people keep arguing that a majority vote is equal to tyranny of the majority. That's an obvious conflation of two things that doesn't address the upshot: if the majority doesn't get its way, then the minority does, and how is that any less tyrannical?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Well, actually, both candidates were soundly rejected (by a factor of nearly 2x) by the country's eligible voters, but that's a different discussion.

    I get your point about the majority thing, but the people that are arguing this "popular vote" stuff are basically saying that New York and California should be able to dictate policy to the rest of us. And that's not how it's ever worked.

  • Tony||

    Instead we get the wise cousinfuckers of Alabama and Montana dictating national policy.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Your party just put a brotherfucker in office. Glass houses there and all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I cant wait for everyone on here to blast Tony for the brotherfucker Democrat that he now has to defend because he's a Team Blue guy.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Instead we get the wise cousinfuckers of Alabama and Montana dictating national policy."

    No one region or state is dictating national policy. That's the whole fucking point.

    And I just love it when somebody who is part of a party that denounces bigotry demonstrates that they're a nasty bigot. Hypocrite much?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    You know when Tony's reached his intellectual limitation when he breaks out the "cousinfuckers".

    Truly a stupid and ignorant person.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Incidentally Tony, you and your equally stupid compatriot the Rev. whine and whine about ignorant people voting against your preferred masters, but you both would shit yourselves to death if it was proposed to make passing a simple civics test a requirement in order to vote.

    Stupid, ignorant and oblivious.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    if it was proposed to make passing a simple civics test a requirement in order to vote

    You figure it would be a good idea to establish a system in which eight or nine votes would win a statewide election in Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, Tennessee, or a half-dozen other red states?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Instead we get the wise cousinfuckers of Alabama and Montana dictating national policy.

    They don't and can't. But they do get their representation that they elect in the house and senate. This really is not difficult stuff. But, you know, power by any means necessary is the leftist m.o. This retarded concept is just the newest iteration trying to manipulate and propagandize people.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Instead we get the wise cousinfuckers of Alabama and Montana dictating national policy.

    Which is why libertarians want national policy to affect citizens as little as possible.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So was the runner up.

    The presidential election is intended to be a federalist decision not a majoritarian one, so as to prevent concentrations of homogeneous ideology from dominating the election.

    It helps that the greatest concentrations of population consistently elect dysfunctional governments. North Carolina should not be forced to live under the collective idiocy of the California and New York electorates.

  • Tony||

    However you defend the system, that system gave us W. and Trump contrary to popular will, so the system is fucked up.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Under your definition, Bill Clinton was put into office in defiance of the popular will.

    I am a small r republican. I don't have a fetish for straight democracy. Democracy can be as bad a tyranny as any other.

  • John||

    You keep using the term popular will like you know what it means.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.7.18 @ 11:49AM|#
    "However you defend the system, that system gave us W. and Trump contrary to popular will, so the system is fucked up."

    Poor, whiny, slimy, lefty piece of shit.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "so the system is fucked up."

    Tony, without this system the United States wouldn't exist. Long before we were born the states with lower population that were getting dictated to by a couple of the bigger states would have said "fuck it" and left. We'd be Europe.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    ... that system gave us W. and Trump contrary to popular will ...

    Winning the popular vote isn't how you win an election. Any candidate stupid enough to pursue the popular vote is too stupid to be president.

    If the goal was to win the popular vote, the campaigning strategy would have been different, and the outcome probably would have been different as well.

  • Seamus||

    I agree. The only way to avoid a fucked up system that puts in people like W and Trump is to establish an absolute monarchy, with me as the monarch. I guarantee that I won't govern like those bozos, so we should be golden.

  • John||

    We have a federal system you moron. There is not a single federal office that is determined by the national popular vote. That is by design. You are the dumbest human being on the planet.

  • Tony||

    It's by design to give extra votes to people who owned slaves. What is there to defend about that? Mere inertia? Do you think I didn't take American history in grade school?

  • John||

    No it was by design to create a union among several sovereign states. The funny thing is that no system of government pays any head to overall popular vote in legislative elections. Even the English Parlimentary system is a system of local elections where the overall popular vote plays no role. You couldn't have a representative Democracy where it did.

  • ||

    Canada owned slaves?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, you had (escaped) slaves, so you share the ENTIRE GUILT.

  • ||

    ARRGH.

    Plus 40 000 Canadians fought in the Civil War.

    I feel shame for two minutes in the box.

  • kevrob||

    There was Slavery in Canada , or, more technically, in New France, then later in British North America. It had been over completely by 34 years by the time of Confederation, and effectively, sooner than that.

    [/history wonk mode]

  • Rat on a train||

    Slavery was abolished in Canada in 1833.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats owned those slaves and agreed to it, Tony you dipshit.

    DEMOCRATS agreed to our system of a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

  • TuIpa||

    The US had slave because of colonialism. Blame the UK and the broken economic system they forced on us that took us decades to shake off.

  • Zeb||

    The 3/5ths compromise wasn't part of the fundamental design of the country. It was a compromise to give the slave states less representation than they wanted.

    I sort of think it would have been better to base representation on the number of eligible voters rather than total population. But that gets a lot more complicated.

    At least you didn't trot out the ridiculously ignorant "blacks were only 3/5 of a person" thing and can realize that counting slaves as zero persons for apportionment purposes would have been better for the anti-slavery cause.

  • JesseAz||

    The electoral college had nothing to do, outside of the 3/5 compromise, with slavery you fucking ignorant sot. It had to do with varying state sizes.

  • operagost||

    What an idiot who thinks the 3/5 compromise was an inherent part of the electoral system 160 years after it was abolished.

  • DaveT1000||

    Unsurprisingly, Tony can't get even get history correct.

    The 3/5 compromise did what he's discussing - by counting "other persons" (i.e., slaves) as 3/5 of a person for population purposes when apportioning House seats. It was hardly part of the integral design of a system with House and Senate seats apportioned differently, however, as we can readily see in the fact that the basic methodology of apportionment has survived to this day even though the 3/5 compromise hasn't existed for well over 100 years.

    In actual history, the "Virginia plan" - one proposed by representatives of a state with many slaves - was for both houses of Congress to be apportioned by population - i.e., in-line with what Tony is advocating.

  • Rebel Scum||

    rejected my a majority of the nation's voters.

    No one running got a majority of the vote. By your (retarded and wrong on multiple levels) logic, Her Shrillness would still not be president, having had more people vote against her by voting for other people and her failing to garner 50.1% of the ballots cast.

    I suppose it is your mendacity and insatiable lust for power over others that makes you this retarded.

  • Rebel Scum||

    if the majority doesn't get its way

    The majority in each state and district DOES get its way in senate and house representation for each state and district, receptively. Do you even know what "republic" means?

  • JesseAz||

    Tony... I know you'll be too stupid to understand this... But in places like California where a lot of contests run with only 2 democrats and no conservatives, you get a depression of votes for conservatives in that area. They don't show up to vote because their vote doesn't matter. If we had popular elections, their behavior would change. We know you barely have a grade school education, so let me know ow if you need a pictoral, that means pictures, description of this issue.

  • Tony||

    Lots of people defending a fucking stupid system just because it happens to currently favor Republicans. How very interest...zzzzzz....

  • Kevin Smith||

    Just because you only support systems that favor your personal politics doesn't mean everyone else does. Most people who support the federal system do so out of principle. I'll wait while you find a dictionary to look up that word, as I'm sure you have no idea what it means

  • Rebel Scum||

    The current system is the law and needs to be followed. You can't change the rules on the fly just because you are losing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony and his Lefties cannot garner support to change the constitution.

  • contrarian||

    It's less tyrannical if you have another body with proportionate representation (ideally, the House) that has to agree with the anti-majoritarian body to enact its will, so the majority and the minority have to agree for something to happen. So the current state is actually a good example.

    On a side note, even if the Senate weren't proportionately representing voters, that would be exactly the point of how the seats are assigned: to protect geographically segregated political minorities.

  • TxJack 112||

    Every state has the same number of Senators. That is how the government has been organized since 1787 and it has always worked. Why suddenly do you think Democrats in California deserve more Senators than states like Wyoming? Do you hear people like me in Texas whining that it is "unfair" Texas has the same number of Senators as Vermont, with is 630,000 people? Do you realize that 37 states in this country have a smaller population than the Dallas/ FT Worth Metroplex? Yet I and other conservative Texans are not whining an complaining. OMG, even when you people win, you still moan and complain.

  • itsjustbob||

    But in the CA US Senate race the majority and the minority WERE ON THE SAME TEAM!

  • itsjustbob||

    In the 2018 US Senate race the majority and minority WERE ON THE SAME TEAM

  • DiegoF||

    How did NH go blue? Didn't Sununu's kid coast to reelection?

  • ||

    I mean it went more blue than red for a libertarian's liking.

  • Zeb||

    NH goes back and forth a lot lately. Democrats will be out again in 2 years if they try too hard to turn us into Massachusetts. First term governors almost never lose reelection in NH. And Sununu is pretty popular.
    As mainstream politicians go, I like Sununu OK. He seems mostly focused on just doing hos job and doesn't make everything about national political issues that governors really have nothing to do with.

  • Dillinger||

    oh they grasp it ... the ones w/the power anyway the idiots are just idiots

  • DarrenM||

    A concept the left can't seem to grasp.

    Or they are perfectly able to grasp it, but are perfectly happy with it.

  • JP88||

    You have to be really educated to be that stupid.

  • ||

    Pop vote is cool...until someone loses an eye.

    Idiots like Copelovitch (I'm sorry, if you're a pundit and you make than argument....you're an idiot) wouldn't care if the GOP had the pop vote, right? I mean, do they believe in the assumption Dems will always have that 'edge'? How would they react otherwise?

    Gee...lemme guess.

    Like babies. Just like they have since 2016.

  • TxJack 112||

    You know what I have not heard? Anyone talking about how unfair it was that the only two Senate candidates in California were both Democrats. That was truly a one party election.

  • Just Say'n||

  • Just Say'n||

    Stupid Google. This was suppose to be an Amy Coney Barett picture

  • Just Say'n||

  • Just Say'n||

    Also, would

  • DiegoF||

    Yes she is really absolutely ridiculous for someone in her position. Trump is said to openly and substantially take looks into consideration when staffing his organization--this was spun in the media as something sexual; what they conveniently left out is that everyone who had reported this was very clear that he does so for men as well as women. (The fact that Trump does indeed hire an unusually high number of women to high positions--the pig--helped make this spin possible.)

    In any case Trump may be poised to revolutionize the judicial aesthetic of SCOTUS as well as its judicial ethic. If he appoints Coney Barrett--and she certainly seems to be the front runner--Kavanaugh will be the dog of the Trump appointees by a long shot!

  • John||

    She is ridiculously hot for a federal judge. The contrast between her Kagan and Sotomayor is going to be quite stunning.

  • Just Say'n||

    Trump is an empty suit. His judicial picks are farmed out to the Federalist Society and McConnell manages the confirmation process. He gets credit for leaving these decisions in the hands of competent people.

    She isn't an ideal justice. She will just provide the most tears. Would be better for him to elevate Willett. But, if given the option of a smart move and the one that will deeply offend his adversaries, Trump will always choose the latter.

  • John||

    Trump is not an empty suit. He just isn't an ideologue who cares a lot about judicial nominations. Trump sees judicial nominations as an easy way to satisfy his conservative base and is happy to farm out their selection to the Federalist society.

    That is a hell of a lot smarter than the two Bushes who were forever putting their cronies on the court only to see them turn out to be liberals once there.

  • DiegoF||

    LOL we will not get Willett. She's a bit to the socon side of a Gorsuch from what I know but that brings up few issues for us. That other dude who was in the top three with her and fratbro I think was the best of them, if I remember--and probably one of the best we have a chance of getting.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Who control Senate Town?

  • Nardz||

    No, Trump's a CEO - not an empty suit.
    Obama was an empty suit.
    Trump's job is to make big picture decisions and give direction, not micromanage every little detail.
    He trusts the Federalist society to give him a list of strong constitutional judges, and he decides based on their legwork.

  • DarrenM||

    What matters are results.

  • ||

    Would in chambers?

  • Dillinger||

    Bang the Judge Slowly

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She can handle my gavel any day.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Catholics shall dominate the court in perpetuity. Now is the time for the Hapsburgs to seize back the throne of Austria, while the Vatican launches a surprise invasion of Rome

  • DiegoF||

    Gorsuch has fallen away from the faith but is still doing God's work.

    I think Democrats nominate Jews; Republicans nominate Catholics is the way it will be given the intellectual landscape of the legal profession. Our "wise Latina" does not fit this mold because she is the blue-collar interloper (both in childhood economic background and in legal career); she is the one justice that brings any semblance of "diversity" in the sense that Scalia brought up in his brilliant Obergefell dissent. Let's quote it now!

  • DiegoF||

    This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' "reasoned judgment." A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

    Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.
  • DiegoF||

    The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
  • lap83||

    What did Feinstein say about her? "The dogma lives loudly within you"
    I loved that, it sounds like something Palpatine would say to a young still-innocent Vader or Vader to Luke. Amy just needs to strike Feinstein down with all of her dogma so she can join her on the dark side of the force.

  • DiegoF||

    Why is this at all remarkable?

    The Democratic postmortem narrative after 2016 could have been, "Hillary was an absurdly weak candidate," or "Hillary ran a strategically moronic campaign; would it have killed her to drop by Milwaukee for a fucking latte?" That would have actually promoted self-improvement, to do better next time. But the establishment wanted to avoid that heat, so for the sake of their own asses they spread the narrative, "We in fact did win the election; we just had it stolen by the Russians and Founding Fathers." At most that has the potential to energize the base with outrage, which is how they probably justified this self-serving decision so they could look at themselves in the mirror.

    And basically as soon as they got away with the "presidential popular vote" nonsense with the rank and file, they knew those suckers would eat anything. "Senate popular vote" is pushing the nonsense to even more cartoonish levels, but of course it really only differs by degree.

  • John||

    Rather than face the truth that the stunt they pulled with Kavanaugh cost them not just a shot at the Senate this year but likely a shot at it in 2020 and ended any hope they had of stopping any of Trump's appointments, they point to a meaningless oddity that they won the popular vote.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the Democrats have is the House and that race is technically not over until those close call races are certified by the states.

    Democrats won back some Governor mansions but they dont really care about that.

    They want power in Washington DC.

    Meanwhile the GOP has evidently captured 34 state Legislatures to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention. Democrats dont even see whats coming next.

  • ||

    Stolen by the Founding Fathers. Well done. Didn't think of that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I might have to borrow that one and give credit.

  • kevrob||

    As nice a coffee milkshake as Alterra or Anodyne would have made her, if you are a Dem appealing to blue collar voters in `Sconsin, you have the sense to order a beer, enna hey? {I spent over 30 years behind the Cheddar Curtain.}

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But don't people vote for individual candidates or, in the case of presidential elections, individual pairings? A popular vote count in this instance is meaningless. Maybe come at me with straight party voting numbers.

    ...bro.

  • Just Say'n||

    The states are gerrymandered

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One of the most political things that is part of the process.

  • No Time for Fishing||

    So gerrymandering affects the election of 2 Senators per state each elected by voters statewide?

  • No Time for Fishing||

    So gerrymandering affects the election of 2 Senators per state each elected by voters statewide?

  • No Time for Fishing||

    So gerrymandering affects the election of 2 Senators per state each elected by voters statewide?

  • TxJack 112||

    Senate races are state wide races, there is no way to gerrymander a Senate race. The only gerrymandering this election was in Pennsylvania where the Democratic controlled Supreme court imposed a map of its own after rejecting the one drawn by the legislature. That map was advantageous to Democrats and as a result they won a majority of the House seats. However, no one in the GOP was whining and crying about the map or the losses yesterday. Why? Because it was an ELECTION and we have one every two years. The Senators who lost their seats, lost because they forgot who they were representing. They decided to remain loyal to their party rather than the people who elected them. Joe Manchin was the lone exception. He remembered he was representing the people of West Virginia, not the DNC when he voted to confirm Justice Kavanagh and the voters remembered and re-elected him. The others opted to ignore the will of their constituents and voted with Schumer and were defeated. Simple as that

  • Daniel||

    Repeal the 17th Amendment.

    The popular election of Senators has contributed to the erosion of understanding that the Senate was meant to be the states' governments representation in the federal government. Not just another chamber for the people....that is the House only.

    The fact that media pundits, and even politicians, perpetuate this ignorance serves as even more evidence that not teaching Civics and American Government in school has been a drain on society as a whole.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Repeal the 17th Amendment.

    yes, please. take 16 with it

  • John||

    Yes. And I would go a step further and prohibit states from popularly electing their Senators. Before the 17th Amendment they did not have to but a good number of states did. I want every state to have their legislatures choose their Senators and make Senators answerable to the state.

    The best example of the evils of the 17th Amendment is Hal Heflin the old Democratic Senator from Alabama. They guy was basically the Motion Picture Association's private Senator. Now what possible interests could the state of Alabama and the MPA share? None. But the MPA had campaign money and Heflin liked taking it and since Alabama didn't have any interest one way or another in his carrying water for them, it was a marriage made in heaven.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Agree and nice addition John.

    Lefties dont want this because Republicans control quite a few Blue State Legislatures, so they could put a GOP Senator to represent a Blue populous state.

    As designed.

  • CE||

    Shouldn't the people of the state pick their Senators? I don't get this argument.
    Does the state legislature somehow represent the people better than the people themselves?

    Or do you just prefer smoke-filled back room deals, where political insiders get appointed to the Senate?

  • BYODB||

    The Senate isn't intended to represent the people except, at best, tangentially via representing the interests of the state government that they come from so why should 'the people' pick them directly?

  • rhondacivic||

    I think perhaps the question, and correct me if I'm wrong CE, stems from a lack of understanding of how a "state" could have interests that the "people" can't be trusted to choose advocates for. Some clarity? Some examples?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Before the 17th amendment, the people elected state legislators and the state legislators picked the US senators. For many states that is.

  • Zeb||

    Perhaps the worst part of the 17th is that it took away the incentive for the Senate to keep more power with the state governments and less with the federal government. State legislatures are less likely to vote for someone who is going to transfer powers and responsibilities (and money) to Washington.

  • Dooley Stetson||

    ^This. Under the pre-17th amendment constitution, the states as entities were represented in Congress. The people had their house, the states had theirs. Now the people are doubly represented, and the states lack direct representation in Congress. Power has devolved from the states to the federal government in large part because of the imbalance of power between the people and the states in Washington. With the direct election of senators, people were able to cede power directly to Washington that wasn't theirs to cede without the state legislature's consent.

  • No Time for Fishing||

    Some truth to that but Governors and State Legislatures have been happily handing off stuff to the Federal Government because they don't want to upset their State voters by taxing them to pay for it. They happily hand it off and wait for the check with strings attached. Then when something isn't working as the voters like they can say not my fault Federal Money and it came with Federal Rules and Regulations complain to your Congressman.
    Don't believe me, go to your School Board and complain about the school lunch they serve and see who they blame. Suggest they exit the Federal Lunch program and pay for the lunch program with local taxes and see what response you get.

  • NashTiger||

    HOWELL

  • CE||

    And how many different Senators would we get? I'm guessing one, the eye doctor guy from Kentucky.

  • Sevo||

    "Pundits Gripe Over Meaningless Senate 'Popular Vote'"

    Added to the list of TDS symptoms.

  • Calidissident||

    Did anyone see that the one juror who didn't vote to convict Menendez was at his watch party to celebrate his victory?

    Classic New Jersey. It's a stain on the Dems that they didn't even try to make him step down or get someone to challenge him in the primary. A no name ran in the primary and got 40% of the vote just based on not being Menendez.

  • John||

    I saw that. It is appearently not enough for Menendez to win re-election. He had to invite the jurror to the victory party so he could give the voter of New Jersey one more eff you. The guy absolutely has no shame. Considering that the Democrats lost ground in the Senate anyway, they would probably have been better off if Menendez had lost. It would be one thing if he was the 51st vote giving them a majority. But if they are going to be in the minority anyway, they are probably better off without Menendez embarassing them.

  • DiegoF||

    Tester has won. Up by 2000 votes with 99% in. So it's no longer true that no competitive Dem who crossed Kavanaugh got away with it. One did.

  • DiegoF||

    Nobody has called it to my knowledge but there are still outstanding votes in deep blue counties and none in red. And 2000 votes is quite a few in Montana.

  • creech||

    So what's the reason that Tester could buck the tide? Is Montana now a purple state and independents and some substantial portion of Repubs like Tester?

  • Gray_Jay||

    He's an incumbent and incumbents usually have an advantage in our system. Among other things, if they're good at their job, they bring home the bacon for enough constituents who like it, and realize that removing people in a seniority system means they won't get it anymore.

    Montana's got a buttload of broke people, Indians, and other members of the Free Shit Army. Even if you remove the military bases from how blue-state-leaning pundits calculate whether a state is a welfare queen or not. The FSA is a core Democrat Party constituency. So are unions, and Montana used to, and may still, have a lot of union members, especially in mining. There are a disproportionate number of government workers. Nothing like NoVa, but still. See FSA.

    In short, plenty of reasons for Montanans to vote Dem, despite their independent rugged reputation. Like Alaska, although there are fewer union workers proportionally in Alaska, last I checked.

  • kevrob||

    MT has had long-serving Senadonkeys, like Max Baucus and Mike Mansfield, and others. See:

    MT US Senators

  • CE||

    Lots of rich Dems move to Montana, or have second homes there.

  • DarrenM||

    The "Senate popular vote" is even more stupid the the "House popular vote".

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    RUSSIAN MEDDLING!

  • Zeb||

    Those guys really dropped the ball on this one.

  • John||

    The funny thing is that the Democrats spend their entire lives looking for fascists under their beds and probably the biggest protection this country has against fascism and authoritarianism is its federal system that Democrats seem so intent to destroy. It is hard to be a tyrant over 50 sovereign states that all have a voice in the government. Indeed, you know who else destroyed their nation's long standing and vibrant system? Yes, that guy Hitler. Destroying the German federal system and consolodating all power in the central government was one of the first things Hitler did.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties are the fascists so their claims to be looking are just smoke and mirrors.

  • juris imprudent||

    On the contrary, they are diligently searching out any competitors.

  • buddhastalin||

    Another left wing fake statistic, just like the gender pay gap number

  • CDRSchafer||

    They are creative in their sore loserhood you have to hand them that.

  • ||

    My god, imagine that, the party that promises the greater amounts of other people's money to other people gets the popular vote. In other news Cookie Monster eats the majority of cookies on Sesame Street.

  • Rebel Scum||

    This whole concept is even more retarded than "national popular vote". The States elect the president of the State (ie electoral college).Each State elects its own senators and house reps and the margins only matter on a State by State or district by district basis. Aggregate votes for one or the other party are not relevant. This concept should tell you everything you need to know about what leftists think of local/State representation and control: They don't believe in it.

  • BYODB||

    Ok, a few hilarious things here that are difficult to unpack as they overlap so closely.


    A) Democrats bitching about the popular vote. Wut? That's their jam. This tells us what we already knew: they have no standards other than winning and power. Not that they are unique in that regard.


    B) Making the Senate a popular vote in the first place means that the Senate itself is pointless. No, seriously, it shouldn't even exist. The reason why? Because they don't represent the interests of the state any longer, but are just another virtually identical Congress with fewer members and bizarrely separated powers.


    C) What is the Democrat answer to the popular vote problem? I mean, seriously, what are they suggesting to 'fix' this problem that their party literally helped create? Let me guess, the rise of a socialist strong man dictator that is essentially Trump only prettier and who says nicer sounding words?

  • Rebel Scum||

    the rise of a socialist strong man dictator that is essentially Trump only prettier and who says nicer sounding words?

    Barry has been quite visible and vociferous lately.

  • BYODB||

    Maybe it'll be Beto now that's he's been taken down a peg or two in Texas.

  • CE||

    The Senate is a moderating influence on the House, because Senators are elected for six year terms rather than two year terms. It serves as a conservative brake on the "throw the bums out" sentiment that comes along now and then.

  • BYODB||

    Your statement doesn't make any logical sense. Is it sarcasm?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    He pointed out something you overlooked, BYODB. Something even more important which you also overlooked? In cases of treaties, amendments, and the electoral college the Senate conducts business on the basis of per-state voting. That's huge, and central to the discussion the OP tried to kick off, with however much futility.

    Another thing which folks agitating for pro-minority-rule, state-based political power are ignoring, is that the system they applaud now little resembles the one the nation enacted in the founding era. At that time—except on per-state-voting questions—nothing that Rhode Island and Delaware could do would upset any Massachusetts/New York/Pennsylvania/Virginia apple cart.

    Now, the count of RI–DE equivalents is up many-fold, with founding era big states augmented by only a few others. Thus, time has changed proportions in favor of minority power, and that trend continues.

    Finally, the current rural/urban political divide was barely noticeable in the founding era. And given the fact that every founding state was overwhelmingly rural, it had polarity opposite to today's. Contrary to much comment here, there was neither founding-era intent, nor any need, to enshrine rural values against urban ones.

    Compared to the founding era, those historical changes have put a lot of strain on the notion of republican government today. Cavalier disregard of that invites major political trouble.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Voting is sooooo bourgeois.
    We should allow the ruling elites to liberate us all from the burden of voting because that entails thinking for ourselves, making decisions and living with the consequences.
    This excellent idea is overdue if we are to enjoy all the benefits and success socialist totalitarian regimes like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. After all, you don't see them voting there, now do you? No. The people there recognize voting only leads to confusion, chaos, anger, resentment and constant bickering among each other. Who needs all that?
    Its time to get with the realities of the world, and allow the more wise, prudent and enlightened elites to take control of our country, us and the world if we are to enjoy this life at its fullest.

  • CE||

    Kind of backwards. Voting PREVENTS people from thinking for themselves, and sticks them with the decisions of the majority. Ban voting and let people live their own lives, as long as they don't harm others.

  • BYODB||


    Ban voting and let people live their own lives, as long as they don't harm others.


    Wut? And who makes and enforces that rule? It sure isn't nature, where the strong survive at the expense of the weak.

  • Uncle Jay||

    You may want to look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    And 17 states didn't even have a senate election. If we're doing a 'popular vote' maybe we should see what they think about not being included?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I guess this Copelovitch guy didn't take a civics class and appears to have no understanding about Senate races.

  • Ann NY||

    "But that would be a pointless exercise, because the Senate (and the House) are not elected by a single national "popular vote.""

    The President isn't elected by a single national "popular vote" either. He/she is elect by a statewide popular vote that is represented by delegates who are pledged to the winner.

  • Kevin Smith||

    So Dems got 55% of the vote, and won 70% of the contests? You're right, that does seem a bit off

  • russnelson@gmail.com||

    It's meaningless and pointless. Typical Democratic stupidity.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some people want to know whether most Americans (or most American voters) are poorly educated, economically inadequate, superstitious, disaffected, intolerant, stale-thinking, authoritarian right-wingers.

    Knowledge is good.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Observing the whining and desperation of Republicans and conservatives as their clinging chokes their chances to maintain an effective electoral coalition as America improves is destined to be great fun for a decade or two of elections.

    Affirmative action for yahoo voices, racist voter suppression, and gerrymandering are becoming less and less likely to overcome the fact that most Americans just aren't half-educated, old-timey yahoos.

  • rhondacivic||

    Who can I gripe to over the meaningless First "Insert Demographic Here" Woman posts that are populating my social media feed?

  • TxJack 112||

    Democrats and Progressives are pushing this narrative for two reasons. First to somehow justify their losing seats in the Senate and second failing to win by a larger margin in the House. Obama lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate in his first midterm and Clinton lost 60 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate in his first midterm. Both of them lost control of the House and never re-gained it for the remainder of their Presidency. Democrats want the mob to rule, so they keep coming up with ways to get the mob angry. Of course, when the mob explodes into violence, they blame the GOP and President. Who are the ONLY people complaining about the outcome of the election today? Democrats. Who are the only ones whining about the system being unfair? Democrats. Who are the only ones attempting to gin up anger by pushing phony narratives about the election? Democrats. On Tuesday night, the GOP lost control of the House. How did conservatives respond? There were no riots, no protests in the streets, no one calling the House illegitimate, and no one refusing to accept the outcome of the election. No all you heard was the GOP leaders saying why they think they did wrong, what they did right and what they plan to do in the future. It was an election, not the end of civilization. Democrats need to learn this reality.

  • TxJack 112||

    Progressives will never be content until we have a system that gives them an unfair advantage in elections so they have perpetual control of all branches of the Federal government. They will whine and complain about the system being unfair until it is a system with only one party that is unchallenged and there is no longer a Constitution to limit their ability to impose their vision on us all.

  • Seamus||

    I wonder why you never heard complaints along these lines (except every so often in the pages of National Review) when Republicans were consistently getting more votes for House of Representatives nationwide, yet continued to hold a minority of seats in the actual House?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online