The Dumbest Issue That Democrats Promote
Yes Dems, the Senate and Electoral College are Democratic Institutions
Voters, beware. We are going to be bombarded over the next 3 years with one of the most false, delegitimizing, and frankly mystifying lies told in politics from the last 20 years. Surprisingly, its not Donald Trump and Republicans pushing it, but Democrats.
In 2024, there is a very real chance that Democrats win the White House, win the House of Representatives, but lose the Senate, and not just by a little bit either. The Senators up for re-election are those that were last elected in the Democratic wave year of 2018, Donald Trump’s midterm election when Democrats won big. Democrats are playing defense in the Senate this year and the list of contested races contains pretty much every swing state and states that Dems are lucky to have one of their side representing. Below is a list of contested Dem seats up this year, along with the percentage of the white working class vote that forms the backbone of the Trump coalition. If Republicans win all of these states in the Electoral College, they win the White House easily.
West Virginia (71 percent)— Joe Manchin. ‘Nuff said there.
Montana (57 percent)— Jon Tester.
Ohio (56 percent)—Sherrod Brown
Arizona (38 percent)—Kyrsten Sinema. Barely won last time, and now hated by most all Arizonans. Angling to run as an Independent in a 3 way race, which would impact the Dem candidate more than the Republican.
Nevada (37 percent)—Jacky Rosen. Barely won with 50.4% of the vote in a strong Dem year.
Wisconsin (56 percent)—Tammy Baldwin. Out of everyone, she seems like the safest since her numbers don’t seem to be tied to the party/Biden overall. Still Wisconsin is a state where 10k margins are common statewide.
Michigan (53 percent)— Debbie Stabenow is retiring. Outcome will hinge on who the candidates are.
Pennsylvania (51 percent)— Bob Casey, Jr. Pennsylvania has been the swingiest of states for the White House and the Senate since 2016.
Republicans need just 2 of those seats to win the Senate. Looking at the two likeliest, Manchin and Tester, two Senators who appeal to blue collar voters, they seem further out of touch with where the core and activism is within the Democratic Party these days. If they lose, the Republicans take control of the Senate. No more judicial approvals, no more pass through appointments. GOP chairmanships and endless investigations galore.
So Democrats very much could win the Presidential popular vote, the House popular vote, and still lose the Senate.1 Handily.
And that is what is going to trigger the constant droning and repeat of the fallacy into overdrive. You’ve likely heard this particular false notion before. The lie goes something like this:
“It is categorically unfair that California gets 2 Senators when it has 40 million people and states like Wyoming (578k), the Dakotas (North 774k, South 895k) and Montana (1.1 million) have the same number. This is fundamentally undemocatic because land doesn’t vote. The Senate should be proportional representation based on population.”
Nevermind that the Democrats in this regard pay absolutely zero attention to the fact that it could be that their coalition itself, demonstated by the issues and positions they advocate, is flawed when it prevents the party from competing in a lot of states, much less winning a majority of Senate seats. Instead, they choose to try to de-legitimize the entire institution of the Senate itself (and indirectly the Electoral College). Don’t believe me? Here’s MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell who routinely brings this up:
So today, I’m going to rebut all of the typical arguments regarding this canard.
Land doesn’t vote!
Actually, every political entity in the world and in history has been defined by borders signifying it’s jurisdiction. Every country, state, county, city and precinct are defined by a border of some kind. Land doesn’t vote, but it has always defined who can and how.
In this case, it’s a state. Each state gets 2 votes in the Senate. That is why the country is called the “United States” instead of just “The Most People Wins.”
It’s disproportionate representation!
At the nation’s founding, each state were (and still are through federalism) separate sovereignties. They wouldn’t have joined together had not there been a check and balance between the population centers who could impose their will on smaller states. States like NH, RI, CT and DE would never have joined if the only states having a say in governance were NY, MA and VA.
So they made TWO houses of Congress. One determined by population, the other determined by jurisdiction. And, well, Alexander Hamilton can make the argument better than I can:
Brought about by a compromise, this was a "constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states." This arrangement would impede passage of bad legislation. No law or resolution could be passed "without the concurrence first of a majority of the people [speaking through the House of Representatives), and then of a majority of the states [speaking through the Senate]."2
The argument remains the same; no state would join this union if NY and CA were the only ones dictating rules. Not only do you have to appeal to a majority of people, you have to appeal to a majority of states.
It’s fundamentally unfair Wyoming and the Dakotas Get the Same Representation as California!
First, there’s already a House in Congress determined by population. It’s called the House of Representatives where California has 52 votes to Wyoming’s 1. Glad we can get that one out of the way.
The granting of statehood is no small deal. Other states need to approve their diminished political influence to do so. Most of the time when states join the Union, it’s done to either 1) exploit the resources of the state or 2) increase political institutional leverage (in the short term; nobody can see the future and know how a state would vote in the future), getting extra votes for a party.3 That's why it hasn't happened since the 1950s.
In California’s case, Congress wanted greater control over California’s gold and mineral wealth and wanted it to be a state. Californians were fine outside of DC east coast control. So to entice them, California was given the ability to set their own boundries in its grant of statehood. They could have chosen smaller, but states being states, decided to set as big of a state as Congress would allow.4 In another case, at the time of Texas' statehood, Texas was given the opportunity to split itself up into five separate states if it chose to (which is still on the books BTW).
In North and South Dakota’s case, they were granted separate statehood to help secure Republican political majorities in the post Civil War 1800s; thus they were given four senators by splitting it up rather than the two they would have had if they were one state.
Wyoming is super interesting. Congress again wanted to exploit the state’s resources, and Wyoming wanted federal protection and money, but it didn’t have enough people and Congress balked at granting statehood. So Wyoming gave women the right to vote decades before the 19th Amendment in order to pad the number of voting citizens. Statehood was granted and it served as a bulwark for the woman’s suffrage movement. And now Democrats are trying to make the case Wyoming shouldn’t be a state. If you lived in Wyoming and heard this, would you vote for Democrats? That’s why this argument is stupid.
Many of these issues rear their head in Democrats’ hypocritical advocacy for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. statehood. Nonetheless, the time to oppose such representation is BEFORE they become states rather than after. Arguments to merge the Dakotas are barred by Article IV of the Constitution.5 Once statehood is given, it can't be taken away either.
“It’s Racist!”
This one has multiple roots I’ll take each one individually:
“It was founded when African-American counted as only 3/5s of a person. Therefore, it’s racist.”
African-Americans have been counted as full people under the Constitution in representation since 1868. In fact, since prior to the Civil War they were counted as less and after they were counted 2/5ths more (ensuring every person was indeed counted as a full equal person under the law), former slave states were finally represented in the same way as every other state. In addition, as noted earlier, the Senate is not represented proportionately by population—that would be the House. You could make the argument that blacks were not granted equal voting access in many southern states, long after 1868, to which I would agree. However, that does not reflect on the institution of the United States Senate as racist, but of the individual state depriving minorities of voting rights.
“Predominantly white states in the middle of the country are overrepresented in the Senate, therefore making it racist.”
If anything, their lack of population is an incentive for minorities and underrepresented groups to move to these states, where their voices can then have an outsized impact. In that same vein, it should be disincentivizing to move to California, New York or other large states where their representation is diminished. I mean, if Wyoming only has 500k, and Senate election margins are about 100k, you would only need 100k from other states to come in and basically create a whole new governing majority. Last North Dakota election, the Senate margin was only 75k.
Besides, being upset about the demographics of a state not in your favor is actually what is racist, since it focuses not on universal ideas that bring people together, but on a genetic trait that categorizes and separates us. Less attention should be paid to demographic interests that are divisive, and more on universal appeals that cross identity political lines. Building a coalition that would obtain a majority within that state is what matters, and Democrats seem unable or unwilling to do that.
Long story short, as an institution itself there is no argument the Senate is not racist as race is not considered in the structue of the institution. One could make the argument that certain people comprising the Senate may be racist (and THAT is completely true even to this day), or that even political majorities may result in certain outcomes that impact or are impacted by race (absolutely), but those are political arguments, and not institutional ones.
The Filibuster Makes it Undemocratic!
This is where language matters. A “filibuster” in the traditional sense is the ability of a Senator to stall a vote by speaking for as long as they can without breaking the rules of the Senate. The longest one was Strom Thurmond’s 24 hour monologue opposing the Civil Rights Act.6
What gets confused with a “filibuster” these days is actually a vote failing “cloture” or the closing off of debate. Open up your “Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure” and you will see that a motion to end debate (not just in the U.S. Senate but in any voting forum all the way down to School Board and Student Government) regularly requires 2/3 vote, or in the Senate 67 votes. This was amended in the Senate Rules years ago to require 3/5, or 60 votes. The main thing though, is that parties in the minority have routinely used this rule to prevent legislation they don’t like from getting through to a vote before the full Senate.
Following rules of parliamentary procedure don’t make it undemocratic, in fact just the opposite, they are necessary for democratic institutions— we’ve had these rules for a very long time and most democratic countries have similar rules when it comes to cloture motions. It does create a procedural hurdle to passage, and in that it requires more than a majority, but the vote on final passage is still majority rules. Reducing the limit to 50 votes essentially makes the majority party all powerful to ram through whatever they want as a fait accompli.7 The existing rule requires compromise and deal making, and results in better legislation.
Conclusion
All in all this is the dumbest argument Democrats can make; rather than focusing on issues that drive voters or trying to persuade others, they make this divisive, futile argument that goes nowhere and is false on its face. Yet I see them doing it again and again, promulgated by pundits on MSNBC and elsewhere. Every time they point a finger at Trump and Republicans spreading delegitimizing claims to our Democracy, they need to point another one back at themselves for pushing this absurd fallacy.
I ask you Dems making this case one very basic question; why in hell would a state like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, Montana and others that you need to get a majority, why would they vote in favor of giving California or New York MORE representation in the Senate and ultimately diminish their own political power? It’s the dumbest idea to promote ever.
PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories
One of my favorite Malcolm Gladwell podcasts is one on statehood that covers West Virginia’s statehood and the ability of Texas to split itself up into 5 states if it chooses. Its a great listen.
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/divide-and-conquer
Another great show on states is “How the States Got Their Shapes” which was on the History Channel for awhile. They get into many of the ways states have made their boundries and in this episode, they talk about states choosing to split from other states when creating their border.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
Quick question: Is Ohio the 17th State to join the union or the 48th? Is it a state at all? The question is not as clear cut as you think.
In November 1802, the Ohio State Convention, located in Chillicothe, petitioned for admittance in the United States by approving the Ohio Constitution. Thomas Worthington, a delegate of the convention, personally delivered the document to Washington, D.C. and presented it to Congress in December. Congress proceeded to approve the action in accordance with President Jefferson’s newly signed 1802 Enabling Act, but forgot one critical thing, they neglected to ratify the Ohio Constitution.
Fast forward to 1953 when Ohio was about to celebrate its sesquicentennial anniversary (150 years). Some Ohio school teachers headed to Washington, D.C. to obtain copies of documents pertaining to Ohio becoming a state in 1803. They thought, just as they do now, that this would be a good way to make history more exciting. Think about it for a second. Would you rather read about Ohio’s admittance into the Union in a musty old textbook or look at the actual documents? But a problem occurred because, the Library of Congress did not have some of the documents. Namely, the legislation that granted statehood to Ohio. It was quickly realized that Ohio technically hadn’t been legally admitted into the United States in 1803.
So Cleveland Representative George Bender introduced legislation on January 13th, 1953, to grant statehood to Ohio, retroactive to 1803. On May 19, the House voted to grant statehood to Ohio and was quickly, (albeit silently) made into law.
This event had some interesting consequences. Since eight Presidents came from Ohio, does that mean laws they passed are invalid? Since Ohio was a deciding state in the passage of the 20th Amendment creating the Income Tax, does that make the income tax invalid?8 So far, the answer seems to be no. But...
Footnotes and Parting Thoughts
Let me know what you think of the page. Please share and comment!
Note also, only 34 Senate seats are up this time as well. This means that the “National Senate Vote” is only focused on those states where there is a Senator up for election, and is far from an actual “National” vote.
Federalist Papers #62. Alexander Hamilton.
This was a huge item in the lead up to the Civil War. States were often included in pairs (one free, one slave) to maintain the balance. Missouri was brought in though by compromise, and when the Supreme Court invalidated the compromise in the Dred Scott case, it directly led to the Civil War.
And you have to admit, California’s population would be much smaller if it were not the size it is today.
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” U.S. Consitution, Article IV, Sec. 3.
Despite the egregiously horrible aspects of his position on the Civil Rights Act, I think we can all be in agreement that talking 24 hours straight, without breaks, is a pretty impressive feat.
Which is great when you are in the majority, but in the minority not so much. Not to mention, when in the majority, you can make rules that further prevent the ability of the minority to get into the majority. For instance, imagine if the GOP with a majority in the House and 51 vote majority in the Senate pass a law banning drop boxes, requiring same day voting and voter ID, and made NRA memberships legit for voter ID but not student IDs.
This has actually been used by tax evaders to claim the government had no right to charge income tax, but the IRS and ultimately the Supreme Court have decided it’s not a valid argument.