Democrats have a Senate problem and it’s linked to their Electoral College problem
In the last 7 presidential elections, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once. In both 2000 and 2016, Bush and Trump won an Electoral College victory, but more Americans voted Democratic. A similar thing happened 2 years ago in the midterm elections, this time with the United States Senate.
In that election, Democrats took over the House with the largest gain in seats for the party since Watergate — a whopping 41. Minority Leader Pelosi became Speaker Pelosi and a swath of fresh faces like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came to Washington.
What many forget is that the Senate went the other direction. Republicans had a net gain of 2 seats.
But like the 2016 presidential race, Democratic senatorial candidates got more votes. Democrats crushed Republicans in the popular vote total: 52.2 million to 34.7 million, or 58% to 38%. Yet the Democrats lost seats while the GOP gained 2 seats, and Mitch McConnell remains majority leader.
The reason for this oddity is similar to the Democrat’s Electoral College problem. Our national system for electing federal officials values states more than people. The voting power of a Wyoming voter is 67 times more than a California voter due to the 2 state rule: each state gets 2 senators no matter the size.
There were other reasons Democratic incumbents in 2018 faced serious headwinds–the map and the math. Map meaning most were from Trump states. Math was the sheer number of Democrats running for reelection vs the Republicans. It gets wonky, but the bottom line is: Dems had a lot more to defend and therefore lose.
23 Senate Democrats were up vs 8 Republicans in 2018. Several of the Democrats running were in states that Trump had won by a landslide just 2 years earlier. Democrats were on the defensive against a negative onslaught from the president.
The larger problem, which also mirrors the Electoral College problem for Democrats, is the apportionment of Senate seats. Electoral College strength is exaggerated in states like North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
The Senate and the electors are linked constitutionally since electoral votes are apportioned based on both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If Senate seats were awarded by population, California would have 12 more senators and therefore 12 more Electoral Votes. Instead, every state gets 2 senators, regardless of population size.
This “technical problem” is responsible for the Great Recession, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the botched Katrina response, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Russiagate and the botched coronavirus response.
Solving this inequity means a long-haul effort. It’s both possible and sustainable.
The party should look at the anti-choice effort as a model. That movement was galvanized by the Roe v Wade decision and despite the odds, they pressed on for decades. Now, they stand closer than ever to victory.
These things take time. Democrats need to fix their attention deficit disorder and take the long view.
So what does solving this look like? We can change the Constitution or change the political dynamics of the states in question (the red ones). It would seem to me that the latter would be more doable, but we should try and do both.
The constitutional change would require 2/3 of both chambers of Congress or by 3/4 of the state legislatures. A high hurdle indeed since neither party has anywhere close to 3/4 of either body of Congress or state legislatures.
Changing the political dynamics of the states in question is possible and there are many roads to get there. Boosting voter registration, elevating rural issues and candidate recruitment are just some of the options. Like any constitutional approach, the journey would require time and planning. Sorry, no quick fix here. We have to accept this will take awhile and plan for it.
It doesn’t help that changing the Electoral College is ranked low on Democratic priorities. Health care, education, criminal justice reform and immigration reform are areas that more directly impact humans. The Electoral College is viewed as a governmental “technical problem,” so it’s tolerated.
Is it worth the trouble? Remember that fact, that the Democrats only lost one of the last seven presidential elections. Imagine what could have been done with six presidential terms. Two presidents in this young century have already been elected while losing the popular vote. How many more will we tolerate before doing something?
This “technical problem” is responsible for the Great Recession, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the botched Katrina response, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Russiagate and the botched coronavirus response. It’s a pretty costly technical problem that demands a higher priority and focus.
There are many reasons to stop tollerating the Electoral College and take steps to overturn it. Pete Buttigieg made it a campaign issue and talked about a generational effort to change it. That’s the way it should be approached.
The Democrats need to commit to changing how we elect presidents and senators. And they need not get into the weeds about it and lose everyone’s attention. It’s a simple message and goal: make our nation more democratic.
Changes this big will take years, perhaps decades to achieve. So there’s no more time to waste. This isn’t about chasing anomolies, it’s about chasing democracy. Trump and his dutiful Republican enablers are limiting democracy–ignoring subpoenas, suppressing votes, persecuting the media and thwarting whistleblowers and law enforcement.
Fighting for more democracy in America is a noble and patriotic cause. Yes, it takes time, but it’s a cause the Democrats should make a higher priority. The payoff could be huge for the Democrats and could lead to a permanent majority in the Senate and an Electoral College lock.
