Debate over public option focuses on Senate Dems who represent 3% of the American people
The nail-biting, on-again-off-again procedural debate in Washington over health care reform is helping to mask a noteworthy fact:
Most Americans want a public option -- and most of their elected lawmakers want it, too.
Popular support for a government-run alternative to corporate, for-profit insurance hovers currently around 53%. (During the heady, passionate debate, this number has dipped from 57%.)
It now appears that at least 55 out of 100 US Senators -- including all four Senators from New York and Vermont -- support the public option, albeit one that would allow individual states to "opt out."
It's also worth noting that these 55 Senators represent the American states with the vast majority of America's population.
Opponents of the bill within the Democratic Party include lawmakers from Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and Montana.
Taken together, they represent roughly 3% of the American people. (Lump in Independent Joe Lieberman and the percentage jumps to around 4%.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic lawmakers from big, high population states (California, Illinois, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania) where most of us actually live support the public option.
Whether you favor or oppose government-managed insurance, it's worth noting that once again the intensely undemocratic structure of the US Senate is skewing the national debate.
The Senate gives hugely disproportionate power to lawmakers from states where very few people live -- states that tend to be largely white and rural.
What's more, the Senate rules allows just a minority of those rural lawmakers to sustain filibusters that block debates and votes.
In small-town America, the public option remains deeply unpopular, despite the fact that a disproportionate percentage of rural folks use publicly-funded insurance, including Medicaid, Medicare and VA services.
"Homelander" opposition in the Senate is likely to be a chronic problem for Democrats pushing an ambitious agenda on everything from immigration reform to the repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/23/2009 09:28:00 AM
34 Comments
34 Comments:
It's interesting that in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that such disproportional representation was unconstitutional. As a result of that ruling, state senates across the country had to redraw their district lines. The US Senate, like the Electoral College, is undemocratic, a throwback to the 18th century. Both should be adjusted. Neither will, of course.
Why should a voter in North Dakota have more say in federal policy than one in California or New York?
It a shame that a small percentage of the population will stand in the way of something so good for the whole country.
The population centers should have greater sway in the running of the country. It works that way in NYS and works quite well.
Why does a ND voter have more say?
ND gets two US Senators -- one for roughly every 300,000 people.
New York gets two US Senators -- one for approximately every 9.5 million people.
That represents a massive redistribution of political power.
--Brian, NCPR
To answer Anon @10:27,
California has roughly 36 million residents, while North Dakota has about 641,00 (2008 numbers from US Census website). A Senator from CA thus has roughly 57 times more constituents than a Senator in ND has. If you look as a Senator's vote as representing the entire population of his/her state, then each resident of ND has fractional vote roughly 57 times greater than what a resident of CA has.
To Anonymous, A ND voter has more say because both states have 2 senators to represent the entire state but ND has only 1/29th the population of NY and only 1/52nd the population of California. Despite that, their representation in the Senate carries the same weight as NY's or California's. In the US Senate an ND voter is equal to 29 New York voters or 52 California voters.
My goodness. What on earth were the framers of the Constituion thinking?
They wanted to keep South Carolina in the United States.
The Senate was established with two representatives from each state to insure that states with large populations would not force their will on the smaller states. The Constitution would not have been ratified without such protection.
i think it's worth emphasizing one of brian's points that hasn't gotten a lot of discussion so far: a lot of the anti-majoritarian-ness (whew!) in the senate derives from from the senate's own rules. for example, so far as i'm aware, there's nothing about the filibuster at all in the constitution -- it's purely a creation of the senate. and if you take away the filibuster, or even reduce the number of votes needed to break one, then that would go a long way towards establishing a more reasonable democratic balance. the same things goes for things like anonymous holds on judges. and the appealing thing about rule changes is that they're way, way easier to accomplish than reforming senate representation.
frThey were thinking that the smaller states' voices should not be overpowered by the larger ones...at least that is what I was taught in my high school civics class! That is why we have two houses of Congress..the House is made up of representatives determined by the population of a state,...figures based upon the census every 10 years and adjusted accordingly..the Senate with 2 senators from each state was to guarantee a balance....does it always work out that way? Maybe not...but that is how the Constitution is written.
The representation method is also a primary cause of the "pork" we hear so much about to buy votes on bills
Gromit, In answer to your gueston. The Federal constitution would not have been ratified without that compromise.
Do you think that the people of North Dakota want Californians (large states) to establish laws without constraints? CA is in deep trouble, they have stripped every fund, such as recycling, highway, oil recycling and are borrowing money from each worker by increasing their withholding of state income tax by 10%. I am unaware that they changed the law they just declared an emergency. People are increasing the number of dependents on their tax form to offset the increases. The state keeps spending more with less income and enacts new regulations without funding. Don't let Californians print their own money. I don't know about NY but I would wager they are doing the same. My family is investigating the possibility of relocating to a small state so we would have more say in the Federal Government. Senator Harry Reid we may be moving to your state. If government didn't adversly effect so many people it would be comical.
I know that, I just wanted to hear it. I realize every state has two senators but a proportionate representation is given through Congress. If you feel it is unfair then the Senate should be abolished. Are you going to give ND 1/4 of a Senator? The system works fine. You can't take away power and influence from smaller states just becuase they don't have the population. BTW the census counts prisoners and illegals so why are they kept in the mix.
I'm a really broken record on this subject, but I think the US Senate is a broken institution.
When the Founding Fathers rigged our political system this way, they were hard-wiring an essentially rural, agrarian bias into our politics.
But now the US is an essentially urban, post-agrarian society.
It's not very fair that white, rural Americans should enjoy political clout that's inflated dozens of times over their urban, ethnically diverse neighbors.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers also gave control over amending the Constitution to rural folks -- which means that we're stuck with this system.
Still, I think it's important to continue acknowledging the fact that our political institutions don't always reflect public sentiment or values.
-Brian, NCPR
To Anonymous @ 1:07:
I am quite familiar with the history of our Constitution and the compromises required to get it ratified. But does that history justify today's inequities? I think not.
The simple fact of the matter is that the way the Senate and the Electoral College are constituted is woefully undemocratic. Our system gives some people more of a vote than it gives others. At earlier times, we denied women any vote at all, ditto with African-Americans. For a while only white men who owned property could vote. No one today believes that was right or proper (geez, at least I hope no one does!), yet it's what the Constitution started out with.
Today, we privilege rural white people and minimize the voting power of urban areas, which just happen to be where most non-white people live. No one planned it that way, of course, but that is how it turned out. Does anyone really want to argue that a white person's vote should carry more weight than a black person's? Probably not, but the current system makes it so.
Let's not forget that in 2000 the presidential candidate with the majority of the popular vote lost in the Electoral College, after some meddling by a partisan Supreme Court. Even if we grant Bush a fair win in Florida (just for the sake of argument), Gore won the popular vote. And then recall that Bush won the preponderance of the states where the population is whiter and more rural than the national average (the prairie and rocky mountain states, for example). On what possible basis, can we call Bush's inauguration fair or just? It was constitutional, it was orderly, but was it just?
People go through all sorts of intellectual contortions to defend how our system sets up the Senate and the Electoral College, but no one ever provides a good rationale for why one person's vote should count for more than another's, simply on the basis of geography.
The fact that CA is currently in financial hot water is irrelevant. There have been other times when CA was flush and the smaller, rural states were doing poorly. Neither scenario justifies citizens of one state having a more or less powerful vote than those of another.
Gromit if the most populated states dictated who led our country that would be a huge problem. Electoral votes ensure smaller states receive equal representation. What's so hard to understand about that. What if NYC was no longer part of NYS? NYS would lose out.
"Why should a voter in North Dakota have more say in federal policy than one in California or New York?"
Why? Becuase they are Americans just like you and me and deserve the same right to representation.
To Anon @ 2:33, I guess you and I just have different systems of math.
You say "Electoral votes ensure smaller states receive equal representation." I don't see where you get "equal." They get a disproportionate share; they are over-represented. That's anything but "equal."
There are reasons for continuing this system, but keeping things "equal" is not one of them.
I ask, "Why should a voter in North Dakota have more say in federal policy than one in California or New York?"
You answer, "Why? Becuase they are Americans just like you and me and deserve the same right to representation."
Of course they have the "SAME right to representation," but the current system gives them MORE representation than you or I have. I think that's a problem, Apparently, you do not.
It would alot easier if the smaller states would just vote the right way.
Gromit do you give less populated states half or even 1/4 a senator? What is the solution. Just combine less populated states and have them all share a couple senators? What is the answer?
Wonderful analysis and commentary.
I was reading the other day that the fillibuster may go back to the days when a Senator had to actually remain in the Senate chambers for as many hours or days it took to be successful.
Remember recent history when the Republicans were the majority and they were threatening to invoke the "nuclear option." According to Wikipedia - "the 'nuclear option' is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster."
Also, it is no great wonder why Sen. Ben Nelson, is so vehemently opposed to a public option or health reform in any form.
This is from Public Campaign - "Publice Campaign has produced a report that showed that Senator Nelson has received more than "$2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office."
These two facts together expose Senator Nelson to the charge of "Good Souls corruption" -- legal, even ethical acts that reasonably lead the public to wonder whether it is the merits or the money that is driving this Senator's decision.
Also, the House of Representatives hasn't grown with the population. It's been stuck at 435 representatives, with a minor exception for Alaska and Hawaii in the 50s, since 1913.
Back then, each House member represented 195,000 people. Now, it's closer to 800,000.
And some congressional districts are twice the population of Wyoming's district (515,000), yet they only get the same single representative that Wyoming does.
Not fair, and getting less so every year.
I'm amazed at some of the posts here. If it weren't for the Electoral College the nations 7 largest cities would determine every national vote! The rest of us might as well stay home.
As for representation, if we followed some of the thought here urban America would over ride the land owners in America. Big deal, we're rural. We also pay all the taxes on the land that feeds us. How is that "fair"?
Don't mess with something that works pretty well.
Bret4207, you make a fair point.
But then you add: "As for representation, if we followed some of the thought here urban America would over ride the land owners in America. Big deal, we're rural. We also pay all the taxes on the land that feeds us. How is that "fair"?"
Are you suggesting by this statement that our urban populations do not own any property and that it is the rural land owners who pay all of the taxes that keep our Federal government running?
Does it therefore follow that small, rural communities should have a greater say in government matters than the teeming metropolitan centers?
No Frank, I'm suggesting that allowing urban concerns to rule the county is no better than letting rural concerns rule the county. In places the concerns overlap, in others they are at polar opposites. To disenfranchise the vast majority of landowners (who pay taxes on that huge amount of land) because the vast majority of land isn't within our urban areas, even though our population is, is no solution. Despite it's flaws, our system is pretty good at at least giving a fair shot to everyone. My fear is that someone will somehow change things and our Republic will become a Democracy. That would be the end of it all.
Don't confuse income tax payments with all the other taxes we pay. Somewhere in my web browsing I saw a chart that showed total taxes paid by geographic area. While no one seems to escape taxation, many urban dwellers seem to make out rather nicely in that particular graph. OF course without knowing the agenda behind the study I can't say how accurate it was. I'd be interested in seeing a study made of taxes paid vs income vs tax dollar benefits per household. My bet is in many cases urbanites make out better than us hicks.
Stupid laptop!!! COUNTRY, not county.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Brian Mann said: "In small-town America, the public option remains deeply unpopular,"
Where's the evidence for this?
Because a poll in Arkansas, a state largely made up of small towns, has this to say:
QUESTION: Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
ALL 55 38 7
MEN 49 45 6
WOMEN 61 31 8
DEMOCRATS 81 14 5
REPUBLICANS 22 71 7
INDEPENDENTS 56 34 10
18-29 59 34 7
30-44 54 40 6
45-59 56 37 7
60+ 50 42 8
WHITE 51 43 6
BLACK 81 5 14
"Give me one logical, rational, and valid reason this can't work."
Because it's not Constitutional. It's that simple for me. Yeah, your way would result in everyone voting, but it would also result in sort of perverted Democracy. Not good. This is a Republic and id it should stay that way. Screw with one section of the house of cards and it all comes falling apart.
BTW- Benevolent dictators are only benevolent as long as you are on their side.
ty said:
"Next, you're required to take a quiz before you vote. You must score at least x% (let's say 90%) on each candidate's stance on the issues. If you can't correctly identify and explain each and every candidate's position on each and every issue on the agenda you don't get to vote."
Ty, your joshing around right?
Who would write this quiz?
And with the habit of some candidates (eg. Sarah Palin) speaking in generalities and sound bites, designed to quicken the blood of the base, how can we ever truly know the answers to the issues on the agenda?
And who writes the agenda?
Here is a sample question that I propose:
Candidate Sarah, a Republican, holds which idea for lowering the enormous Federal deficit - a. cutting taxes, b.tax cuts, c. cut taxes or d. all of the above.
I'd pick "c" and get it wrong.
And here you complain that nobody pays attention to what is being said. :-)
This post has been removed by the author.
...this blog has proven the inability to remain civil and maintain a high standard of conversation in the comments.
Well, ok, one more attempt to reach you ty, maintaining that high standard of conversation which you apparently are noted for:
I like your questions.
But why stop at who is for health care and freedom to worship guns?
How about these:
Does Sarah Palin love freedom?
Does Obama want to fight terrorists?
Where was Sarah Palin born?
Where was Obama born?
What religion is Palin?
What religion is Obama?
Sorry for being such an ass.
Or do you mean, pain in your ass?
Not saying you don't get it right once in a while, but don't run away because you are asked for clarification or your insights are challenged.
And no one is calling you ignorant or an ass, ty.
Post a Comment
<< Home