What is a Mandate from the People?
Let me start by saying this article isn't specifically about Democrats and Republicans. It uses them as examples to make a point, but the point is about elected officials of whatever party taking advantage of a biased system to ignore the will of the majority.
Today people talk about the Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. This has allowed them to carry out various policies. Their record of passing legislation in Congress has not been as extensive as one might have expected. Some GOP efforts in Congress have failed because of opposition from extremist Republicans in Congress. In one famous case, the Republicans lost by one vote when John McCain decided not to follow the herd. On the other hand, there have been presidential actions, confirmation of nominees, actions by cabinet members, etc. Congress has passed the tax bill, confirmed one Supreme Court nominee, and are attempting to push through another Supreme Court appointment.
How does this compare to 2009-2010, when the Democrats controlled the presidency, House and Senate?
Wikipedia shows more detailed charts of the composition of Congress - including fluctuations in the number of seats held by each party as vacancies appeared and were filled.
Over the 2009-10 period, in the Senate, the number of Democrats (and independents caucusing with them) varied from 57 to 60. (The number was 60 only during two periods totalling about 6 months.) The number of Republicans varied from 39 to 42. (The GOP only had 42 seats from 11/29/2010 to January 2011.) During a majority of the 2 year period there were 1 or 2 vacant seats.
In the House, the number of Democratic seats varied from 253 to 258. (The number was 253 for only 5 weeks and it was 58 for only 7 weeks.) The number of Republican seats varied from 176 to 180. (It was 176 for only 1 day, and it was 180 for 4 weeks.)
In comparison, during the 2017-18 period, Wikipedia gives us these figures:
In the Senate, the number of Republican seats varied from 50 to 52. (It was 52 for the first 12 months.) The number of Democratic (and independents caucusing with them) varied from 47 to 49. (It was 47 for only 1 day. It's been 49 since 1/3/2018.) The number of vacancies varied between 0 and 1.
In the House, Republican seats have varied from 235 to 241. (It was 241 for 30 days, and it was 235 for 7 weeks.) Democratic seats varied from 193 to 194. The number of vacancies varied from 0 to 7.
So, you can see that simply in terms of how many seats were held by one party, the Democrats had more significant majorities in both houses in 2009-10 than the Republicans have had in 2017-18.
However, that shouldn't be the only thing we consider. The US election and representational systems are biased. The official vote totals tell us that in 2016 Trump "won" with 46.09% of the popular vote, white Clinton got 48.18%. In contrast, in 2008, Obama got 52.93% of the pupular vote, and McCain got 45.65%. I would think that would have given Obama more of a mandate than Trump. However, the minority party of those years did not accept that Obama had a mandate.
In the 2016 House races (adding up votes for each party's candidates nationwide), Republicans got 49.1% of the votes, but 55.4% of the seats. Democrats got 48.0% of the votes, but only 44.6% of the seats. The GOP did get more votes. (I won't go further into the question of whether this was influenced by "red states" making it harder for some people to vote.) However, the GOP House candidates did not get 50%, which should limit any claims to a mandate. In 2008, Democrats got 53.22% of the votes and 59% of the seats. Republicans got 42.62% of the votes and 41% of the seats. In that election, the party which held control of the House actually had a majority of the votes.
The Senate is a more peculiar one to compare than presidential or House elections. First, only 1/3 of all Senate seats are up for election every 2 years. Also, the association between popular vote and proportion of seats is biased by the fact each state gets 2 seats regardless of population. Therefore, smaller (often relatively conservative) states get disproportionate numbers of seats. The current Senate has been filled by elections in 2012, 2014 and 2016 (plus vacancies filled in between.) If you add up all the votes for each party across the country in each of those 3 elections, in none of the three did the Republicans get as much as 44% of the votes. And yet, they have had 50 - 52 seats since 2017.
Below are the nationwide vote counts for those Senate elections. (Note the column headings are: Dem = Democrats, Ind = Independents caucusing with Dems, and Rep = Republicans.)
The three elections that filled the Senate seats for the 2017-18 session:
Year_____Dem__________Ind__________Rep
2012____49,988,282_____961,282_____39,128,301
2014____22,598,628_____672,196_____19,302,133
2016____51,269,434_____562,935_____40,761,406
Total___123,856,344___2,196,413_____99,191,840
+ Ind _____2,196,413
Tot al___126,052,757
The three elections that filled the Senate seats for the 2009-10 session
Year____Dem_________Ind_________Rep
2004____44,754,618___186,231____39,920,562
2006____32,344,708___378,142____25,437,934
2008____33,650,061___176,752____28,863,067
Total___110,749,387___741,125____94,221,563
+ Ind_______741,125
Total____111,490,512
If you look at the 3 elections responsible for the 2009-10 Senate (2004, 2006 and 2008), and you look at the 3 elections responsible for the 2017-18 Senate (2012, 2014 and 2016), in not even one of those elections does the national vote count for Republicans come near to the vote count for the Democrats (even without counting the votes for the independents who caucus with the Democrats.) Regardless of whether you judge the mandate of the 2017-18 Republicans by the 2016 election by itself or by the combination of 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections, their popular vote is considerably below that of the Democrats.
Both in terms of the number of seats won within the biased system and by the popular vote, Democrats did considerably better in 2008 than the Republicans did in 2016. Granted, in the 2016 House races Republicans got a plurality of those able to vote. The Democrats' number of seats was greater in 2009-10 and also their vote counts gave them a more realistic mandate.
Perhaps, in 2009-10 the Democrats accomplished somewhat more in Congress. They passed a highly flawed ACA, with much benefit going to the insurance companies. They passed a flawed financial reform legislation which did not reinstate Glass-Steagall and has been found to have other weaknesses. The latter legislation's weaknesses are especially noteworthy as it came in the shadow of the "Great Recession," which might have made the issue pressing.
The question this article poses is: Why does the party which had significantly lower voter support and fewer seats, insist so fervently that it has a greater mandate to do whatever it wants (even if public opinion pools show the public disagrees with them on a particular policy.) Why is this claim not treated as total nonsense by the media? And why does the legal system make it possible for them to do it?
Today people talk about the Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. This has allowed them to carry out various policies. Their record of passing legislation in Congress has not been as extensive as one might have expected. Some GOP efforts in Congress have failed because of opposition from extremist Republicans in Congress. In one famous case, the Republicans lost by one vote when John McCain decided not to follow the herd. On the other hand, there have been presidential actions, confirmation of nominees, actions by cabinet members, etc. Congress has passed the tax bill, confirmed one Supreme Court nominee, and are attempting to push through another Supreme Court appointment.
How does this compare to 2009-2010, when the Democrats controlled the presidency, House and Senate?
Wikipedia shows more detailed charts of the composition of Congress - including fluctuations in the number of seats held by each party as vacancies appeared and were filled.
Over the 2009-10 period, in the Senate, the number of Democrats (and independents caucusing with them) varied from 57 to 60. (The number was 60 only during two periods totalling about 6 months.) The number of Republicans varied from 39 to 42. (The GOP only had 42 seats from 11/29/2010 to January 2011.) During a majority of the 2 year period there were 1 or 2 vacant seats.
In the House, the number of Democratic seats varied from 253 to 258. (The number was 253 for only 5 weeks and it was 58 for only 7 weeks.) The number of Republican seats varied from 176 to 180. (It was 176 for only 1 day, and it was 180 for 4 weeks.)
In comparison, during the 2017-18 period, Wikipedia gives us these figures:
In the Senate, the number of Republican seats varied from 50 to 52. (It was 52 for the first 12 months.) The number of Democratic (and independents caucusing with them) varied from 47 to 49. (It was 47 for only 1 day. It's been 49 since 1/3/2018.) The number of vacancies varied between 0 and 1.
In the House, Republican seats have varied from 235 to 241. (It was 241 for 30 days, and it was 235 for 7 weeks.) Democratic seats varied from 193 to 194. The number of vacancies varied from 0 to 7.
So, you can see that simply in terms of how many seats were held by one party, the Democrats had more significant majorities in both houses in 2009-10 than the Republicans have had in 2017-18.
However, that shouldn't be the only thing we consider. The US election and representational systems are biased. The official vote totals tell us that in 2016 Trump "won" with 46.09% of the popular vote, white Clinton got 48.18%. In contrast, in 2008, Obama got 52.93% of the pupular vote, and McCain got 45.65%. I would think that would have given Obama more of a mandate than Trump. However, the minority party of those years did not accept that Obama had a mandate.
In the 2016 House races (adding up votes for each party's candidates nationwide), Republicans got 49.1% of the votes, but 55.4% of the seats. Democrats got 48.0% of the votes, but only 44.6% of the seats. The GOP did get more votes. (I won't go further into the question of whether this was influenced by "red states" making it harder for some people to vote.) However, the GOP House candidates did not get 50%, which should limit any claims to a mandate. In 2008, Democrats got 53.22% of the votes and 59% of the seats. Republicans got 42.62% of the votes and 41% of the seats. In that election, the party which held control of the House actually had a majority of the votes.
The Senate is a more peculiar one to compare than presidential or House elections. First, only 1/3 of all Senate seats are up for election every 2 years. Also, the association between popular vote and proportion of seats is biased by the fact each state gets 2 seats regardless of population. Therefore, smaller (often relatively conservative) states get disproportionate numbers of seats. The current Senate has been filled by elections in 2012, 2014 and 2016 (plus vacancies filled in between.) If you add up all the votes for each party across the country in each of those 3 elections, in none of the three did the Republicans get as much as 44% of the votes. And yet, they have had 50 - 52 seats since 2017.
Below are the nationwide vote counts for those Senate elections. (Note the column headings are: Dem = Democrats, Ind = Independents caucusing with Dems, and Rep = Republicans.)
The three elections that filled the Senate seats for the 2017-18 session:
Year_____Dem__________Ind__________Rep
2012____49,988,282_____961,282_____39,128,301
2014____22,598,628_____672,196_____19,302,133
2016____51,269,434_____562,935_____40,761,406
Total___123,856,344___2,196,413_____99,191,840
+ Ind _____2,196,413
Tot al___126,052,757
The three elections that filled the Senate seats for the 2009-10 session
Year____Dem_________Ind_________Rep
2004____44,754,618___186,231____39,920,562
2006____32,344,708___378,142____25,437,934
2008____33,650,061___176,752____28,863,067
Total___110,749,387___741,125____94,221,563
+ Ind_______741,125
Total____111,490,512
If you look at the 3 elections responsible for the 2009-10 Senate (2004, 2006 and 2008), and you look at the 3 elections responsible for the 2017-18 Senate (2012, 2014 and 2016), in not even one of those elections does the national vote count for Republicans come near to the vote count for the Democrats (even without counting the votes for the independents who caucus with the Democrats.) Regardless of whether you judge the mandate of the 2017-18 Republicans by the 2016 election by itself or by the combination of 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections, their popular vote is considerably below that of the Democrats.
Both in terms of the number of seats won within the biased system and by the popular vote, Democrats did considerably better in 2008 than the Republicans did in 2016. Granted, in the 2016 House races Republicans got a plurality of those able to vote. The Democrats' number of seats was greater in 2009-10 and also their vote counts gave them a more realistic mandate.
Perhaps, in 2009-10 the Democrats accomplished somewhat more in Congress. They passed a highly flawed ACA, with much benefit going to the insurance companies. They passed a flawed financial reform legislation which did not reinstate Glass-Steagall and has been found to have other weaknesses. The latter legislation's weaknesses are especially noteworthy as it came in the shadow of the "Great Recession," which might have made the issue pressing.
The question this article poses is: Why does the party which had significantly lower voter support and fewer seats, insist so fervently that it has a greater mandate to do whatever it wants (even if public opinion pools show the public disagrees with them on a particular policy.) Why is this claim not treated as total nonsense by the media? And why does the legal system make it possible for them to do it?
Comments
Post a Comment