Senate Dems voted in by 4.2 million more votes than Pub Senators

I spend too much of my time debating with conservatives in various venues in RL and online. The 'nuclear option' has brought out the typical arguments, but one that seems to really resonate with them  is the argument that the 'minority party' shouldn't be allowed to get away with the filibusters to block beloved Bush's nominnees. Afterall, using their reasoning, which I can understand to a point, the people voted and elected Bush and Republicans to the majority in the Senate. You know, that supposed mandate thingy. Oh and my favorite line of theirs, "majority rules!" Just nevermind, the fact we're a republic, or the fact they blocked a much higher number of Clinton nominees, or the fact they are bad judges, hey, they're the majority damnit... sigh. They really do love the power trip, eh?

Anyway, so I got to wondering, what are tha actual vote totals for the 'minority party'...

Do republicans hold the majority there too, considering so many are from such small voting states?  Well it turns out, no. No they were not given the majority of seats in the Senate by a majority of voters. 4.2 million more votes were cast for sitting Dem Senators than sitting Pub Senators.

Here's the data taken from the FEC site for 2000 and 2002 and CNN for 2004.

Republicans.............Democrats
2000    
1,108,196...AZ.............5,932,522...CA
1,427,944...IN.................828,902...CT
437,689.....ME.................181,566...DE
654,941.....MS..............2,989,487...FL
208,082.....MT.................251,215...HI
2,666,736...OH.............1,230,013...MD
330,687.....NV...........,..1,889,494...MA
2,481,962...PA...........,..2,061,952...MI
222,588.....RI..........,....1,181,553...MN
1,255,444...TN.................353,093...NE
4,082,091...TX..........,...1,511,237...NJ
504,803.....UT.................363,744...NM
1,420,460...VA..........,...3,562,415...NY
157,622.....WY.................176,470...ND
.....................................189,133...VT *
...................................1,199,437...WA
.....................................469,215...WV
...................................1,563,238...WI

2002
792,561.....AL.................433,306...AR
179,438.....AK.................135,253...DE
717,893.....CO...............2,103,766...IL
1,071,352...GA.................554,278...IA
266,215.....ID...............1,235,554...LA
641,075.....KS...............1,605,976...MA
731,679.....KY...............1,896,614...MI
1,116,697...MN.................204,853...MT
295,041.....ME...............1,138,193...NJ
533,269.....MS.................253,922...RI
935,032.....MO.................167,481...SD
397,438.....NE.................275,281...WV
227,229.....NH                 
314,301.....NM   
1,248,664...NC   
583,579.....OK   
712,287.....OR       
600,010.....SC   
891,420.....TN   
2,496,243...TX   
1,229,894...VA   
133,710.....WY   

2004   
1,242,200...AL.................580,973...AR
149,773.....AK...............6,955,728...CA
1,505,372...AZ................1,081,188...CO  
3,672,864...FL.................945,347...CT
1,864,202...GA.................313,629...HI
499,796.....ID...............3,597,456...IL
1,038,175...IA................1,496,976,,,IN
780,863.....KS................1,504,691...MD
873,507.....KY.................494,805.....NV
943,014.....LA...............4,769,824...NY
1,518,089...MO.................212,143.....ND
434,847.....NH................1,128,728...OR
1,791,450...NC.................216,972...VT
3,464,356...OH................1,549,708...WA
763,433.....OK................1,632,697...WI
2,925,080...PA   
857,167.....SC
197,848.....SD           
626,640.....UT   

Total Votes:

R: 58,222,948.................D: 62,420,028   

* I counted Jeffords 189,133 votes as dem, even though he was elected as a pub.

Now I understand the way the founders set up the government, but it's always been a thorn in my side that a WY vote for example, is usually worth at least 3-6x more than a heavily populated blue staters vote. Obviously, the way it was set up, it  hurts the dems when it comes to electoral votes and the balance of power in the Senate. I for one am sick of hearing about 'majority, majority, majority", when it's slim at best and not totally accurate in the Senate if we think of ourselves with a representative government. While I reaize it's possibly just wishful thinking, based on turnout %'s, I do feel if CA or NY, et al. had more incentive to vote in the 04 presidential election, Bush probably wouldn't have won the popular vote again.

Anyway, I thought the info was interesting and something I'm not hearing from our leaders or the media, so I thought I'd pass it along. Perhaps louder voices than mine can use it to some sort of framing advantage, whether it applies to the filibuster battle or election reform, morale boost, etc..

P.S. While I copy and pasted all the data from above into a spreadsheet and double checked my numbers, I'd appreciate if someone would fact check for me that my numbers are accurate.  If you use the same data I did, make sure you don't count MO (Carnahan) from 2000, as she was defeated in a 2002 special election.

P.P.S. A quick google didn't give me anything on the house seat winners vote totals. And I don't have the time to go thru every race, so if anyone has that info, I'd be most grateful if you post it. Thanks.

•  and we're supposed to believe

  that the 4.2 mill voted for a dem senator, then voted for bush/cheney

  by Errol on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:56:33 PM PDT

  •  Well, no.

    Much as I'd like to agree, the numbers in the diary span 3 election cycles (to account for all Senators).   Look at the numbers just for 2004.  
    By my quick calc, the difference came out

    R - 25,148,676
    D - 26,480,865
    Diff: (D) 1,332,189

    Still enough to be concerned about, but remember alot of that could have been accounted for by Colorado voters alone - is it that hard to believe a Salazar voter would have voted Bush over Kerry? Then include AR, IL, IN, NV, ND... start to seem more plausible?

    I don't disagree with where I think you're coming from. I just don't think these numbers provide significant support for it.
    

    by MH in PA on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:21:19 PM PDT

    •  sorry about that - misunderstood your chart

      i think the numbers by themselves don't say one way or another, but they are in line with the fraudster theories

      by Errol on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:35:22 PM PDT

      •  Not my chart - kirari's. (n/t)

        by MH in PA on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:03:49 PM PDT

        •  whoah! guess i'm really not awake

          today!

          by Errol on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:34:58 PM PDT

    •  the Colorado Salazar voters voting for

      Bush, yes, plausible.  voting a different party for the top of the ticket is a plausible scenario, but like the noted errors, it becomes less plausible if the scenario only benefitted bush. [NH voters, for example, voted for Kerry at the top of the ticket - but then we get into the problem that we don't really know the figures because there was no complete recount, arggh!!] anyway thanks for posting this info

      by Errol on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:48:24 PM PDT

    •  Losing candidates

      So I summed up the totals for the losing candidates for each of those 3 elections.

      There were 6.8 million more votes cast for the losing Republican candidate in those 3 election cycles than for the losing Democratic candidate.**  Combine that with the 3.8 million more votes cast for the winning Democratic candidates in those 3 election cycles than for the winning Republican candidate and you get a total of about 3 million more total votes cast for Republican Senate candidates than for Democratic ones.

      **Notes: I count Jeffords in 2000 as a Republican and do not count Carnahan's victory in 2000.  Furthermore, Democrats did not field a challenger in Arizona in 2000, or in Kansas, Mississippi or Virginia in 2002.  I also count the runoff result as the official result for Louisiana in 2002 and combined the totals for all Democratic candidates in Louisiana in 2004.

      by DaveOinSF on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:53:17 PM PDT

      •  Jeffords

        With Jeffords as a Democrat, the margin would be 2.2 million more votes for Republicans than for Democrats.

        by DaveOinSF on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:57:23 PM PDT

•  Jeffords

  I would still count Jeffords as a Republican instead of Democrat.  When he was elected in 2000 it was clearly as a Republican, and there was no hint of his impending flip.

  Doesn't make too much difference...3.8 vs 4.2 million, according to your methodology.

  by DaveOinSF on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:13:40 PM PDT

•  I copied your numbers into a spreadsheet

  and came up with the same totals you did.

  By the way, I find this kind of interesting.  I lived in DC in 2000.  There was talk about the fact that DC does not have any representation in Congress. I remember hearing (but haven't verified) was that the population of DC is greater than that of Wyoming.  So you may add that to your argument.  

  by NYC Sophia on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:14:39 PM PDT

  •  It's true

    http://get.yourfile.net/bi33073.pdf - I made this and am welcome to corrections and suggestions.

    D.C. > Wyoming

    :-]

    by Viktor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:17:33 PM PDT

  •  Sorry screw the link

    They suspended it for no good reason at all.  Anyway
    here we go: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

    D.C. 553,523 - 3 EV
    Wyoming 506,529 - 3 EV

    July 2004 estimates

    by Viktor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

    •  So close your eyes for a sec

      and imagine that we had two more democratic senators and I believe one more representative in congress.

      Oh well.  It was fun.

      by NYC Sophia on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 01:54:29 PM PDT

•  I posted a diary about this a few weeks ago

  (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/133914/3310 I used 2003 population stats) and the numbers amaze me, however according to the way our country is set up, Senators represent the states interests, not based by population.  Though this was put into place so that small states wouldn't be run over by larger ones, today it is clear to see the exact opposit has happened:  The largest states in our country, the ones with the biggest economies, the ones that contribute the most to the federal "pot," are left completely voiceless in this administration.

  by SanJoseLady on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:24:52 PM PDT

  •  The Senate was worse than that really

    Until the seventeenth amendment to the U.S. Consitution many people didn't vote for senators in their states; they were chosen/appointed by the states' legislatures.  Now they only do that when there's a vacancy through a death or resignation or something like that where the governor steps in and makes an appointment.

    The Senate was even more anti-democratic back in the day.  I think if I recall correctly it was intended to put the brakes on popular democratic advances by the House of Representatives by making sure most states would go along with it, regardless of their population size.

    by Viktor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:40:58 PM PDT