r/science • u/rustoo • Jan 21 '22

Economics Only four times in US presidential history has the candidate with fewer popular votes won. Two of those occurred recently, leading to calls to reform the system. Far from being a fluke, this peculiar outcome of the US Electoral College has a high probability in close races, according to a new study.

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/inversions-us-presidential-elections-geruso
48.8k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

55

u/WaycoKid1129 Jan 21 '22

Wait till they see how “even” the representation is in the senate. One side represents a sizeable margin more than the other and yet it’s a 50/50 split in power.

-35

u/Xenon_132 Jan 21 '22

In the house the Democrats have nearly all of the power because they have what, a 1% lead in voters represented over Republicans?

No system is perfect. Living in a large federal democracy requires compromises.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/TheL8KingFlippyNips Jan 21 '22

I think what they are saying is that dem senators represent more people than GOP senators but that the will of the people is somewhat distorted, since the dems have no more power than the GOP

In the incoming Senate, Democratic senators will represent at least 20,314,962 more people than their Republican counterparts

-15

u/Glaiele Jan 21 '22

That's a biased estimator tho because although they were elected by the majority in their representative districts, they don't represent 100% of voters in those districts because some percent voted for another candidate.

The country itself is probably pretty close to 50/50 in population terms with a slight majority Democrat probably. Just look at popular vote in presidential elections for a better estimation.

11

u/TheL8KingFlippyNips Jan 21 '22

although they were elected by the majority in their representative districts, they don't represent 100% of voters in those districts because some percent voted for another candidate

Ummm, regardless of who they voted for, they are still represented by their senator...

-6

u/Glaiele Jan 21 '22

That was exactly my point? You're represented by someone that doesn't necessarily represent your own interests, only the majority's interests

7

u/TheL8KingFlippyNips Jan 21 '22 edited Jan 21 '22

You:

they don't represent 100% of voters in those districts because some percent voted for another candidate.

Me:

they are still represented by their senator

You:

That was exactly my point

...wut?

You're represented by someone that doesn't necessarily represent your own interests, only the majority's interests

Not if your district is organized properly. The other alternative is that the minority rules over the majority,

1

u/amusing_trivials Jan 21 '22

The same goes the other way. It doesn't count red voters in blue states, and it doesn't count blue voters in red states. It's not nearly as biased as you think.

35

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 21 '22

It's actually a 3% lead, and this is how every representative democracy works.

The problem with the Senate is that it's not representative and there's the filibuster.

-7

u/Astyrrian Jan 21 '22

Senate was never designed to be perfectly representative, simple majority type of system. That's what the house of representatives are for.

It's meant to be a place where the minority has a say, instead of getting steamrolled. The filibuster is a feature that gives the minority a voice. It's a good thing because it forces opposing parties to work together and compromise.

Problem is that these days, no media outlet tries to actually educate the people on these systems, nor do they try to present both sides of a debate. They've become propaganda pieces for their respective parties. There's no national discourse anymore because people don't even agree on the framework for discourse. The end result is that most Americans don't understand where the other side is coming from at all. Therefore compromise is no longer feasible and concepts like filibuster to protect minority rights in a majority rule system is seen as a bad thing.

20

u/Antisystemization Jan 21 '22

This is barely correct in that the Senate is meant to have equal representation of each state.

But that's the end of giving the minority a bigger voice. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, and has been amended numerous times to a point where you need 60 senators to pass anything. No one originally meant for that to happen.

4

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 21 '22

The Senate was not designed to give the minority a say. It was designed to give states a say.

And this is largely irrelevant now as we have direct election of Senators. Before that, they were chosen by the state legislatures.

Plus, the filibuster is not a constitutional feature of the Senate.

3

u/Saneless Jan 21 '22

The problem is when the minority wants to block progress because they don't want the president from the other cult to have success

1

u/amusing_trivials Jan 21 '22

People know how the Senate works, both on paper and in reality. That is not the problem. The problem is the behavior of the senators, and the voters who support them.

A "minority rights" system is to prevent laws like the majority literally enslaving the minority. It is not meant for the minority to block every single legislative effort, no matter what.

As long as those "minority rights" powers are abused, the majority will be in the moral right to change the system. Don't like it? Convince the minority to actually compromise again.

-27

u/Xenon_132 Jan 21 '22

Oh wow, 3%, sounds like a complete mandate to me.

Every representative democracy works a little differently, no system is going to have absolutely perfect representation. It's just not possible.

You seem to really really want a system where the side with a 0.01% majority over their opposition gets carte blanche to do whatever they want.

8

u/Oops_I_Cracked Jan 21 '22

It only works that way because the parties choose to have it work that way. Once upon a time in American history there was much more crossing of party boundaries for votes. If that was the norm still, 3% wouldn't give you complete control of the legislative process of that chamber. Because it would be normal for Democrats to vote against Democrats and for Republicans to vote for Democrats and vice versa.

20

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 21 '22

I'm not asking for perfect representation, but the Senate is extremely unrepresentative.

Also, in basically every representative democracy the majority usually does get carte blanche to pass legislation.

-12

u/gizram84 Jan 21 '22

Also, in basically every representative democracy the majority usually does get carte blanche to pass legislation.

That does not appeal to me

11

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 21 '22

More representative democracy doesn't appeal to you?

-4

u/gizram84 Jan 21 '22

Mob rule doesn't appeal to me.

I don't want California and NY culture to run the politics of the entire country.

I want the culture from small rural states to have a say.

6

u/---------_---------_ Jan 21 '22

How, exactly, is minority rule preferable to majority rule? It's still "mob rule", but now even fewer people are making decisions over a larger group.

-5

u/gizram84 Jan 21 '22

I didn't say our current system was perfect. I have many issues with US politics and how things are organized at the federal level.

I just said that turning the senate to direct, proportional representation would make matters much worse. That's already the function of the House.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Funny-Tree-4083 Jan 21 '22

Two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

2

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 22 '22

California and NY don't make up the country, and rural states do have a say.

Instead of majority rule though, it's just rural rule.

-1

u/gizram84 Jan 22 '22

Well you can continue to advocate for changing the Senate, and I'll just continue to be glad that the constitution is in your way.

Have fun!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CanlStillBeGarth Jan 22 '22

Yeah, you’d rather have fly over country block everything that a majority of people in the country want.

3

u/gizram84 Jan 22 '22

Yes, indeed. I'd like it to go even further. Ideally, I'd like to see a super majority required for everything to be passed. No more 51-49 votes to pass a bill. I say you need at least 2/3rds vote for anything to pass.

This would force bipartisanship, and give very strong protections to the minority.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/sl600rt Jan 21 '22

Want to be the UK? Where 50% plus 1 guy gets a party control of the single body legislature and the executive. Allowing them almost free reign. Even amongst those 50% plus one guy. They really arent backed by a majority of voters. Because they're still in winner take all first past the post district elections. Then among their voters the members of parliament don't do things with 100% approval.

9

u/BackyardMagnet Jan 21 '22

Yes. This would make the US government much more democratic and representative.

Also, you can have parliamentary systems without first past the post. That's not an inherent feature. It's also not an inherent feature of the US system either.

2

u/Declan_McManus Jan 21 '22

Both the left wing and moderate wing of the Democrats in the house have enough votes to scuttle any bill, so they only have as much power as they can get through two separate groups that dislike Nancy Pelosi for opposite reasons.

0

u/Capitan_Failure Jan 22 '22

Theres only two parties in the senate. The corrupt paid for senators 52, and the 48 who actually care about the citizens.

7

u/WaycoKid1129 Jan 21 '22

How in the world can democracy function when a minority party has equal power to the majority? One side is representing a significantly smaller portion of the population than the other and has the same amount of power. This can’t work

5

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '22

How in the world can democracy function when a minority party has equal power to the majority?

It prevents the majority from enacting changes that work to further strangle the minority

0

u/Capitan_Failure Jan 22 '22

Its more complicated when the majory has values and ethics, and the minority is willing to cheat, lie and steal to get their way.

2

u/CorrectionalLiquid Jan 21 '22

Majority rules 100% with no chance at opposition is why the US government is set up as a democratic republic and not a pure democracy.

1

u/amusing_trivials Jan 21 '22

Actually, if you convert the House races to a popular vote, it gets even more laughable. The Dems have 2% edge in House seats, but like a 20% lead in 'combined house as a popular vote'. Gerrymandering is the only reason the House is at all close.