Despite having an organized 51-49 majority, Senate Democrats get outvoted by Republicans by more than 13%, based on how things would sort out if a Senator's vote carried the weight of the population of their state.
Perhaps this explains some of the discontent with the Congress. Of course, these numbers are nothing new, nor are books about the broken third-branch, but I wanted to run them myself, to see how things stand.
The table below shows the over representation of each state by relating the state's population percentage to the two senators that each state gets (a 2% weight).
Given the current party affiliation of the senators in the 110th Congress, the Republicans show a 13.2% net over representation. That equates very nearly to thirteen senate votes (each senator is 1% of the total senate).
Since the super-majority votes commonly require ten votes (10% of the senate), we can say that the current discrepancy in the Senate is material.
| Sate | Population | Over Rep. | Sen1 | Sen2 | Net O/R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1.6% | 0.4% | R | R | 0.4% |
| Alaska | 0.2% | 1.8% | R | R | 1.8% |
| Arizona | 1.8% | 0.2% | R | R | 0.2% |
| Arkansas | 0.9% | 1.1% | D | D | -1.1% |
| California | 12.2% | -10.2% | D | D | 10.2% |
| Colorado | 1.6% | 0.4% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Connecticut | 1.1% | 0.9% | D | D | -0.9% |
| Delaware | 0.2% | 1.8% | D | D | -1.8% |
| Florida | 5.7% | -3.7% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Georgia | 3.0% | -1.0% | R | R | -1.0% |
| Hawaii | 0.5% | 1.5% | D | D | -1.5% |
| Idaho | 0.5% | 1.5% | R | R | 1.5% |
| Illinois | 4.4% | -2.4% | D | D | 2.4% |
| Indiana | 2.1% | -0.1% | D | R | 0.0% |
| Iowa | 1.1% | 0.9% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Kansas | 0.9% | 1.1% | R | R | 1.1% |
| Kentucky | 1.4% | 0.6% | R | R | 0.6% |
| Louisiana | 1.6% | 0.4% | D | R | 0.0% |
| Maine | 0.5% | 1.5% | R | R | 1.5% |
| Maryland | 1.8% | 0.2% | D | D | -0.2% |
| Massachusetts | 2.3% | -0.3% | D | D | 0.3% |
| Michigan | 3.4% | -1.4% | D | D | 1.4% |
| Minnesota | 1.8% | 0.2% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Mississippi | 0.9% | 1.1% | R | R | 1.1% |
| Missouri | 2.1% | -0.1% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Montana | 0.2% | 1.8% | D | D | -1.8% |
| Nebraska | 0.7% | 1.3% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Nevada | 0.7% | 1.3% | R | D | 0.0% |
| New Hampshire | 0.5% | 1.5% | R | R | 1.5% |
| New Jersey | 3.0% | -1.0% | D | D | 1.0% |
| New Mexico | 0.7% | 1.3% | D | R | 0.0% |
| New York | 6.7% | -4.7% | D | D | 4.7% |
| North Carolina | 3.0% | -1.0% | R | R | -1.0% |
| North Dakota | 0.2% | 1.8% | D | D | -1.8% |
| Ohio | 4.1% | -2.1% | D | R | 0.0% |
| Oklahoma | 1.1% | 0.9% | R | R | 0.9% |
| Oregon | 1.1% | 0.9% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Pennsylvania | 4.4% | -2.4% | D | R | 0.0% |
| Rhode Island | 0.5% | 1.5% | D | D | -1.5% |
| South Carolina | 1.4% | 0.6% | R | R | 0.6% |
| South Dakota | 0.2% | 1.8% | D | R | 0.0% |
| Tennessee | 2.1% | -0.1% | R | R | -0.1% |
| Texas | 7.4% | -5.4% | R | R | -5.4% |
| Utah | 0.7% | 1.3% | R | R | 1.3% |
| Vermont | 0.2% | 1.8% | D | D | -1.8% |
| Virginia | 2.5% | -0.5% | R | D | 0.0% |
| Washington | 2.1% | -0.1% | D | D | 0.1% |
| West Virginia | 0.7% | 1.3% | D | D | -1.3% |
| Wisconsin | 1.8% | 0.2% | D | D | -0.2% |
| Wyoming | 0.2% | 1.8% | R | R | 1.8% |
| Total | 100.0% | 0.0% | 51-D | 49-R | 13.2% |
Of course, it is easier to identify the problem than to fix it. The worst of the problem is clearly with California, which is severely under-represented.
If we drew a threshold that no state should be more than 2% under-represented, which is very high relative to the two senators minimum floor that has been used historically, the states that need redress are just a small bunch.
Together, "fixes" here could correct 9.5% of the problem, if those senators were given "super-votes", equal to a weight closer to their represented population.
Super-vote weights are problematic, however, because they might cause sharp swings, as party affiliation changed. Expanding the number of Senators is another option.
It might appear that it would be a wash to do so. However, NY is currently far more "D" than Texas is "R". If we were to add senators in party affiliations roughly equivalent to the current House seats for each state, the result would be a pickup of about 3 Democratic seats each for CA and NY and 1 Republican seat each for TX and FL, or about a 4 vote shift to the Dems.
| Sate | Pop | Over Rep. | More Senators | Sen1 | Sen2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 33,930,798 | -10.2% | +8 | D | D |
| Florida | 16,028,890 | -3.7% | +2 | R | D |
| New York | 19,004,973 | -4.7% | +3 | D | D |
| Texas | 20,903,994 | -5.4% | +3 | R | R |
Dropping the threshold to 1% adds Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, but the House caucuses are fairly split in these states, so that net statistical change in seats would be very near zero.
