The 46 Dem Senators got more votes than the 54 Republicans

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Free Bird]

We get it. Low turnout.

[cinyc]

We get it. Low turnout.

No.  More Democratic Senators hail from larger states with more votes.  Excess votes in New York and California are wasted.

[Kraxner]

Article 1, Section. 3.

[TJ in Oregon]

In other news, eliminating the senate is probably trending on some social media site.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Interesting to note that the 2012 class, the lower populated/smaller states were of benefit to Democrats, pointing to victories in the Northeast, Montana, and North Dakota.

Attention Democrats: It can be done.

[Kraxner]

In other news, eliminating the senate is probably trending on some social media site.

Next in the line of failed democrat propelled constitutional amendments?


First the ERA, then the amendment against nuclear weapons, then an amendment against the electoral college and the latest line of failures, the "amendment to repeal citizens united".

Interesting to note that the 2012 class, the lower populated/smaller states were of benefit to Democrats, pointing to victories in the Northeast, Montana, and North Dakota.

Attention Democrats: It can be done.

Independents+Reagan democrats+Moderate republicans split their vote for the democrats despite voting mostly for romney in 2012. Lots of strong romney states voted for democrat senators that year.


West Virginia's presidential and senate race results were an mirror image of eachother.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=54&year=2012&f=0&off=0&elect=0



https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=54&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1


Oh yeah and most democrats running in presidential red states are more conservative than the national party so that helps.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

In other news, eliminating the senate is probably trending on some social media site.

Next in the line of failed democrat propelled constitutional amendments?


First the ERA, then the amendment against nuclear weapons, then an amendment against the electoral college and the latest line of failures, the "amendment to repeal citizens united".

Interesting to note that the 2012 class, the lower populated/smaller states were of benefit to Democrats, pointing to victories in the Northeast, Montana, and North Dakota.

Attention Democrats: It can be done.

Independents+Reagan democrats+Moderate republicans split their vote for the democrats despite voting mostly for romney in 2012. Lots of strong romney states voted for democrat senators that year.


West Virginia's presidential and senate race results were an mirror image of eachother.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=54&year=2012&f=0&off=0&elect=0



https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=54&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1


Oh yeah and most democrats running in presidential red states are more conservative than the national party so that helps.

This one ingredient discredits your entire point. Reagan Democrats don't exist and haven't for nearly 30 years.

[Kraxner]

In other news, eliminating the senate is probably trending on some social media site.

Next in the line of failed democrat propelled constitutional amendments?


First the ERA, then the amendment against nuclear weapons, then an amendment against the electoral college and the latest line of failures, the "amendment to repeal citizens united".

Interesting to note that the 2012 class, the lower populated/smaller states were of benefit to Democrats, pointing to victories in the Northeast, Montana, and North Dakota.

Attention Democrats: It can be done.

Independents+Reagan democrats+Moderate republicans split their vote for the democrats despite voting mostly for romney in 2012. Lots of strong romney states voted for democrat senators that year.


West Virginia's presidential and senate race results were an mirror image of eachother.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=54&year=2012&f=0&off=0&elect=0



https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=54&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1


Oh yeah and most democrats running in presidential red states are more conservative than the national party so that helps.

This one ingredient discredits your entire point. Reagan Democrats don't exist and haven't for nearly 30 years.

Reagan democrats is a much more known term than "America first democrats"


http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/09/07/independent-swing-voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Mikado]

Well, anyone who voted for Reagan must be at least 48.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The analysis is flawed, and the person who wrote it should be ashamed.

Here's how...they aren't adding up the votes cast for ALL Democratic and Republican Senate candidates...only the ones who won. Democrats still likely won the popular vote across the three cycles (only because of '12), but not by nearly that margin.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Just to explain a little better, this would be the equivalent of figuring out the popular vote for president by only taking the number of votes each candidate got in the states they won. Pretty asinine when you think about it.

[Boston Bread]

Yeah, this really means nothing since a lot of democrats were elected in presidential year 2012.
Anyways, if reform were up to me I'd rid of the senate so to only have one legislative chamber.

[Vega]

This is rather misleading.

[ElectionsGuy]

Well yeah, since more Democratic Senators come from larger states, this is going to happen. Not to mention much more Republicans were now elected from 2010 and 2014, and much more Democrats from 2012.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I assumed this was a Vox headline before I even saw the link address.

[SWE]

Article 1, Section. 3.

A very good argument as to why the Constitution is awful, thank you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Reagan democrats is a much more known term than "America first democrats"


http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/09/07/independent-swing-voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those type of people didn't vote for Reagan. Look at the 1984 map some time.

[Del Tachi]

Just to explain a little better, this would be the equivalent of figuring out the popular vote for president by only taking the number of votes each candidate got in the states they won. Pretty asinine when you think about it.

Basically this.

Using the correct method, the spread comes out to roughly 98.6 million Democratic votes and 94.3 million Republican ones.

Also interesting to note is that Democrats apparently aren't the only ones who suck at turning out their voters in a midterm environment, Republican Senate candidates actually received 10 million fewer votes in 2014 than they did in 2010.

[memphis]

To me, it's self evident that the Senate is anti-democratic. That is its entire raison d'etre. But if this statistical snippet helps those less interested in politics to understand this very important point, there's nothing wrong with it making its way across the facialbook, where I saw it this morning.

[Xing]

What I think is even more ridiculous is that Democratic House members got more votes than Republicans in 2012, but the Republicans ended up with a 234-201 seat advantage.

[Mister Mets]

It's ridiculously misleading, and kind of a dumb argument for liberals given the conservative lean in the House.

It's interesting how I didn't hear as many liberal arguments about how we should abolish the Senate between the 2010 and 2014 elections.

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html

Sean Trende skewers the nonsense Vox article and even cites data from the Atlas. Basically shows that this is yet another "how dare States be treated equally" click-bait article.

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mister Mets]

Just to explain a little better, this would be the equivalent of figuring out the popular vote for president by only taking the number of votes each candidate got in the states they won. Pretty asinine when you think about it.

Basically this.

Using the correct method, the spread comes out to roughly 98.6 million Democratic votes and 94.3 million Republican ones.

Also interesting to note is that Democrats apparently aren't the only ones who suck at turning out their voters in a midterm environment, Republican Senate candidates actually received 10 million fewer votes in 2014 than they did in 2010.

In 2010, there were elections in California, Florida and two in New York. Republican candidates got about 10 million votes in those four states that were not up for election in '14.