Edit: I’m talking more of in the context of shifting populations, not a one-off election. What happens if this is the results of several consecutive elections. Will there just be nothing happening? Indefinite Government Shutdown?
Yes. You’re seeing it somewhat already.
That was the actual point of the Senate. It’s meant to be a stopgap against populism. But sort of like a pair of pants that used to fit years ago but you suddenly find tearing at the seems and hard to move in, what was once working has become a serious issue due to how the country has grown and the cultural/geographical trends among the population. It used to be something that helped balance the country, but it’s design is such that it doesn’t adjust itself as the House does overtime with population changes or, critically, the addition of new states. No matter how many human beings are actually living in any one state, it still gets two senators, and when you’re a giant state like California or New York, it’s actually strangling the voices of millions.
In short, our country’s democratic system was never meant to be one wherein the vast majority of people all lived in a handful of states. It was designed with growth in mind, but not the kind of rural decay we see with people not wanting to live in the “flyover” states.
It was written at a time when everyone’s dream was to settle and build a home anywhere they could. When the ratio between the biggest and smallest state’s population was around 7:1
Now it’s 32:1. They never dreamed certain states would be so vacant after 200 years, or at least, they assumed the Constitution would be adjusted for this reality later on (it wasn’t).
No, we were never meant to be a direct democracy where majority always rules, but we were also not meant to be a country where the majority is as powerless as it is.
why not develop the rural areas to attract more people there, wouldn’t that be a win-win-win for the dems, conservatives and the actual populace there?
That has been happening for the past 100 years, both in improving rural regions in general and developing regions to make them better and to be settled. And the programs have been successful in distributing the population over larger parts of the country.
The problem is that there are major disagreements on what should be developed and what strings are attached to the money.
I’ve been thinking this is the solution to a number of problems (e g. high COL). The problem is that the popular states are popular for a reason
When it comes to presidential elections, that happens quite frequently. How the majority of citizens vote (the “popular vote”) may go one way, but given the way districts are organized (and due to things like gerrymandering), the electoral college’s result may well be the opposte of “the popular vote.”
When that happens, the electoral college wins. There’s no deadlock or anything. That happened in 2016 with Trump’s victory. In recent times, Republicans have tended to lose the popular vote even when they’ve won the electoral college. But when they do, the electoral college wins.
I don’t think congress would really come into play except in some rather strange circumstances.
Edit: I managed to accidentally delete my last post. But I also wanted to add that when we vote for the president, we don’t actually vote for the president per se. We vote for an elector who promises to vote for the president we mark on the ballot. Kinda weird, I know, but that’s how it works. The “electoral college” is the term for the whole group of electors.
You’re misunderstanding the question.
They’re not talking about a presidential election. They’re talking about the basic function of the federal government.
The House of Representatives and the President are both elected by the population. The electoral college fucks up the presidential election, and gerrymandering fucks up House Representative elections. But to spite that, both of them are voted for by the “majority”, while voting power is adjusted with population changes to maintain this, and therefore they more accurately represent the people. The Presidency less so because of the college but still, on the whole, it represents the will of the people most of the time.
The Senate is, by design, not meant to do that. It is meant to give an equal voice to each individual state, regardless of population. Majority does not rule when it comes to the Senate. The only thing that matters are the geographical borders drawn up almost 200 years ago and have never changed since. Again, by design. It’s a deliberately anti-democratic body.
They’re asking what happens when populations move shift around and congregate in a few states. This would result in a deadlock situation where the House and the President both represent the majority of people but the Senate would increasingly strangle their will. It would create a permanent minority rule over the country, and bring Washington to a deadlock for…well, until something is done about it.
We aren’t at that extreme just yet but we are getting close.
“Deadlock” is the excuse that your party makes when they only pass laws for billionaires.
The question is confusing, but are you under the impression that the Senate is elected by the states? This was the case until being changed by the 17th amendment. I believe the only times “states vote” would be in the case of constitutional amendments or the electoral college during a presidential election, but that is only in a sense because the states’ electors are still chosen by the votes of the people
State is obviously referring to state populations
The Electoral College subverts the will of the people by allowing the states/people split you describe. However, fluctuations in voter turnout and the large population of swing voters prevent any consistent election results year over year.
Two dynamics show no signs of letting up: mid-term elections favor the party that isn’t in the White House, and the party not in power (for any given elected office) tends to experience a more motivated base and a friendlier swing vote. These major dynamics, and many smaller ones, produce enough turbulence that the electoral college can’t wholly determine the outcome of every election.
Yeah, it happens pretty frequently actually. Right now it is Executive + Senate vs House.
It means deadlock but not total deadlock. Just more compromise.
Now if it is Executive + House vs Senate as in your question, that has some new conflicts. The Senate confirms judicial appointments, so often in this situation the president’s nominees have a very hard time getting confirmed.
It can be more complicated than that depending on exactly what the breakdown is for senate and the house.
Historically, if a senator is from a swing state, they’ll need to compromise a little more than one from a more uniformly political state. So if it’s a very close senate split, there wouldn’t be so much deadlock.
If the Senate had 60+ from the opposing party though, then basically they can stop everything. They would have a supermajority and wouldn’t need to worry about filibustering, and moderate senators could still vote against the party line safely for questionable votes.
Then there are situations where upcoming elections can change voting strategy.
Really, the question is extremely point in time and can’t be answered on a general sense. Just compare the end of Obama’s term to the end of Clinton or Trump to see how different splits and political climate can have wildly different outcomes.
The general population election is a popularity contest, all the for real voting power is with the electoral college members. Each state has a certain amount of EC representatives depending on population size. They can vote however they want even if its against the states general civillian vote
They can vote however they want even if its against the states general civillian vote
Yes and no - it varies by state since there are no federal laws that address it.
This is called a “faithless elector” and the majority of states (33 states plus D.C) have laws on the books prohibiting it, though not all void the faithless vote or have any penalties for the elector.
When it comes to presidential elections, that happens quite frequently. How the majority of citizens vote (the “popular vote”) may go one way, but given the way districts are organized (and due to things like gerrymandering), the electoral college’s result may well be the opposte of “the popular vote.”
When that happens, the electoral college wins. There’s no deadlock or anything. That happened in 2016 with Trump’s victory. In recent times, Republicans have tended to lose the popular vote even when they’ve won the electoral college. But when they do, the electoral college wins.
I don’t think congress would really come into play except in some rather strange circumstances.
Nothing changes. There is no difference between the two parties anymore. It’s bought off multi-millionairs vs the rest of us. They get richer off our taxes while they make life more unbearable by the day. There are a handful of exceptions but in the grand scheme the vast majority all act tough in front of the cameras and screw us when the cameras are off.
