WaPo: Democrats Need To Stop With The 'Senate Popular Vote' Nonsense. It's A Bogus Stat

|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2018 1:05 PM
WaPo: Democrats Need To Stop With The 'Senate Popular Vote' Nonsense. It's A Bogus Stat

You could see this liberal narrative coming from a mile away: Democrats won more votes in the Senate races, but they lost seats. Therefore, the system is unfair, or something. Yeah, you got beat. Deal with it. Oftentimes you lose in elections. There’s nothing otherworldly about this, but Democrats can’t stand losing. To them, they’re so right in their views that anything other than sweet victory means backward, racist, and less-educated beings are in the way. Within the liberal bastions of America, the various urban cesspools that dot the country, the anti-Constitution and historically illiterate interpretation of how we do things here are spreading like a virus. It’s mob rule. Yes, Trump was right about Democrats; they do produce mobs. How bad is this talking point? Even The Washington Post had to say this (non-statistical) figure is worthless:

Democrats didn’t win everywhere Tuesday night, despite their clear momentum. They won over the House and some governor seats, but they also lost seats in the Senate, making their path back to the majority there more difficult than it was before

[…]

…the Senate popular vote is a bogus stat for a whole host of reasons. It’s true that the Senate isn’t set up particularly favorably for Democrats — there were 30 red states in the 2016 election and 20 blue ones, and the many small red states such as Wyoming have the same number of senators as exponentially more populous blue states such as California and New York — but the Senate popular vote is not a stat that tells that tale.

The biggest problem with it is that not every state is up for reelection, leading to a skewed picture. If more Democratic seats are up for reelection, it stands to reason that Democrats will do well in the popular vote. And that’s exactly what happened in 2018: Democrats were defending 26 states, and Republicans just nine.

The second reason is California. It has a unique system in which the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party. This year, that was two Democrats. That means all 6 million votes counted (with many more to come) go to the Democrats. Given California is by far the biggest state, that badly skews the national “Senate popular vote.”

Noah Rothman of Commentary also touched upon the majoritarian mob rule ethos that’s infesting the Left right now:

The Founding generation’s restraints on the popular will have eroded over time, but their ideals have remained largely intact. Among the values we’ve preserved is an egalitarian understanding that the people are sovereign—the ultimate arbiters of political contests—but “the people themselves” do not govern. Throughout the Federalist Papers, the Constitution’s framers warn of the reptilian nature of people in a crowd. They are prone to “the tyranny of their own passions” and possessed of an “incapacity for regular deliberation.” As James Madison warned, even if every Athenian were as wise as Socrates, “every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

This is wise counsel, but an increasingly broad coalition of youngish technocrats on the left has no use for it. These influencers and the politicians for whom they provide intellectual ballast are increasingly comfortable endorsing the most unenlightened forms of direct democracy.

Democratic politicians and their allies in media have attacked the legitimacy of the Electoral College. As of this spring, 11 states have adopted nonbinding resolutions that would apportion their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the so-called national popular vote. Similarly, the activist left has become convinced that the United States Senate must be either purged of its essential characteristic—its unresponsiveness to population changes—or it must be abolished altogether. The Supreme Court, too, must be “packed” with activist judges who will not just rubber-stamp liberal policy preferences but with an aim toward ending the practice of judicial review. Why? Because, as Vox.com’s Dylann Matthews submitted, the judicial practice of verifying the constitutionality of legislative provisions is “really, truly bad for” Democrats.

This naked power hunger is framed as advocacy in our best interests. After all, this anti-majoritarianism presages a “legitimacy crisis.” Vox.com’s Ezra Klein warned that the prospect of a Democratic victory in the non-existent national “popular vote” that does not deliver a House majority to them would sap faith in the American constitutional order. The fact that both George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the national popular vote but were nevertheless allowed to execute the duties of the office to which they were elected constitutes a failure of democracy, GQ’s Julia Ioffe lamented. In the eyes of Think Progress’s Ian Millhiser, the upper chamber of Congress is facing a “legitimacy crisis” because it is not as responsive to the public as the House of Representatives.

Ioffe and Klein’s fear for the legitimacy of the United States government would be more easily attributable to good faith if they didn’t include the confirmation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as contributing factors.

And Rothman aptly notes that you can thank Harry Reid for making it easier for the GOP to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court. 

When nothing goes their way, the Left will, and usually does, conjure up something, no matter how ridiculous, to explain why they suck and what they must do to make sure they don’t lose again in the name of transparency or making things more democratic. They’re usually absurd, MSNBC-laced garbage talking points that not even liberal publications take seriously, like whining about the so-called Senate popular vote. It’s all part of the long crusade to erode American institutions and break them to their will. Sorry, liberal America, but slow change and the pace of government moving as such is exactly what our Founders intended. Efficiency was not the goal of the Constitutional Convention. It was safety. The creation of a safe, enduring government who could withstand the attacks from the likes of you far left cancerous creatures.