By now, it's old news that control of the Senate has changed from Democratic to Republican. This, more than most other developments from Election Day, is being heralded by Republicans and pundits as a sign that President Bush and the Republican Party have received a mandate from the American people.
Or have they?
Let's look at the numbers. The Senate of the 108th Congress will consist of 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 independent.* Now, consider this: the 51 Republican Senators collectively received 44,265,695 votes in the most recent election for their seats (1998, 2000 or 2002).** If you count Senator Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican, but subsequently became an independent, the total votes for Republican senators is 44,454,828.** Now look at the Democrats: the 48 Democratic Senators collectively received 53,425,954 votes** -- between 8.9 million and 9.1 million more votes than the Republicans.
So what does this mean? Let's start with what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that the Democrats were robbed, or that the Republican control of the Senate is illegitimate, or that the Democrats didn't lose the Senate. They weren't, it isn't, and they did. But here's what I am saying: the Republican control of both the Senate and the Presidency is based on winning less than a majority of the votes cast. While this is how our system is designed (that is, sometimes, the minority can control), it isn't any kind of mandate when it comes to matters of national policy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Moreover, as we saw in 1994 and 2000, Republicans have in the past overstated the mood of the voters and, by going hard to the right wing, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And, certainly, the stage is set for a reprise of that scenario -- just over half of the respondents in a recent AP poll indicated that they were concerned that the Republicans will move the country too far in the conservative direction, while almost two-thirds said they were at least somewhat concerned that Republicans will push through tax cuts that will increase the budget deficit. [link]
I guess my only questions are these: First, what is the Democratic Party doing to capitalize on its numeric superiority, and second, how long can the Republican's control by minority hold out?
*The actual results in the Senate may be 52/47/1, depending on a run-off election in Louisiana, where the Democratic candidate won, but failed to garner more than 50% of the total vote. My analysis assumes that the Senate seat stays Democratic, but in fact, the actual result in Louisiana won't affect my analysis, since it is not a large enough pool of voters to swing the total number of votes cast nationwide from Democratic to Republican (there were approximately 1.3 million votes cast in total).
**Vote totals were taken from the Federal Election Commission website [1998 results] [2000 results] and from the New York Times [2002 results]
Or have they?
Let's look at the numbers. The Senate of the 108th Congress will consist of 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 independent.* Now, consider this: the 51 Republican Senators collectively received 44,265,695 votes in the most recent election for their seats (1998, 2000 or 2002).** If you count Senator Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican, but subsequently became an independent, the total votes for Republican senators is 44,454,828.** Now look at the Democrats: the 48 Democratic Senators collectively received 53,425,954 votes** -- between 8.9 million and 9.1 million more votes than the Republicans.
So what does this mean? Let's start with what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that the Democrats were robbed, or that the Republican control of the Senate is illegitimate, or that the Democrats didn't lose the Senate. They weren't, it isn't, and they did. But here's what I am saying: the Republican control of both the Senate and the Presidency is based on winning less than a majority of the votes cast. While this is how our system is designed (that is, sometimes, the minority can control), it isn't any kind of mandate when it comes to matters of national policy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Moreover, as we saw in 1994 and 2000, Republicans have in the past overstated the mood of the voters and, by going hard to the right wing, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And, certainly, the stage is set for a reprise of that scenario -- just over half of the respondents in a recent AP poll indicated that they were concerned that the Republicans will move the country too far in the conservative direction, while almost two-thirds said they were at least somewhat concerned that Republicans will push through tax cuts that will increase the budget deficit. [link]
I guess my only questions are these: First, what is the Democratic Party doing to capitalize on its numeric superiority, and second, how long can the Republican's control by minority hold out?
*The actual results in the Senate may be 52/47/1, depending on a run-off election in Louisiana, where the Democratic candidate won, but failed to garner more than 50% of the total vote. My analysis assumes that the Senate seat stays Democratic, but in fact, the actual result in Louisiana won't affect my analysis, since it is not a large enough pool of voters to swing the total number of votes cast nationwide from Democratic to Republican (there were approximately 1.3 million votes cast in total).
**Vote totals were taken from the Federal Election Commission website [1998 results] [2000 results] and from the New York Times [2002 results]
posted by Daniel at 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home