Recommendations?
3
Krugman loves to do the California/Wyoming waltz. Poor Californians - at least the Dumocrats - are drowned out of the political debate by those white cowboys with a grade school "education". Boo hoo.
Strangely, Paul never mentions Delaware. Or Vermont. Same number of Senators as California, but only one Representative. Or, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hampshire. They each have a whopping 2 Representatives.
Why no mention of these states? Well, it surely isn't because they are comfortably Blue. Surely.
Professor Krugman also doesn't address the issue of the impact of illegal immigrants on the number of Representatives allocated to California. The reason "progressives" balked at reinstating the "Citizen or Not" Question on the Census is that California would be exposed as gaining several House seats based entirely on its outsized non-citizen population. So would New York State.
Urbanization is not a recent phenomenon as Krugman would have us believe. Humans apparently tend to cluster in crowded mazes when given the opportunity. Fortunately for the enlightened masses, a few wretched souls still till the soil, mine the ore, carry the water and bury the trash that their urban betters require to lead their privileged lives.
The next time you open your refrigerator or flush your toilet or visit a national park, give pause for Senate America.
13
I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that we need rural states and environments. Here we are arguing about who deserves a greater voice in congress. It is important that we value all our people and each of the 50 states. This bickering only makes rural states frustrated and angry when, in fact, without them we would be in trouble. Many of our beliefs, no matter how true, are simply like red to a bull. He will attack albeit an empty threat. If we want to be "inclusive" it must apply to everyone.
5
A lot of whining here why Democrats can't win in certain areas of the country. And when you don't win the Constitution is flawed. Then change it. Oh; it has a snowball chance in hell. Next topic please.
6
Excellent discussion. Think we will change things up. My main concern is the Environment. And don't think we will have 30 years to figure this and the science out - at least by UN estimates. No electoral college. Unicameral legislative body with all those splinter parties. But with real policy decisions - yes impacting how we live everyday. I am not going to see how this works out environmentally but my kids will. And don't want them to see a dystopian hell. Which apparently is a possibility.
2
This is the result of Fox News people. These citizens would not vote so directly against their own interests if not for the propagandizing by Fox News and paid for by the 1%. Add in some russian fbook trolling and voila! A real fine payoff for rich criminals.
20
The GOP has successfully used democracy to destroy democracy and the Democratic Party has sat on their smug, entitled, lily-livered hands since the Nixonian 'southern strategy' and allowed it to happen.
6
Economists tend to have their heads in the clouds, as those who deal with real life economics know. Today, we're dealing with real politics as seen by political people with their heads in the cloud see it. The hoped for Blue Wave turned into a ripple, because of the reality remaining reality despite the cloudists claims.
The urban sophisticates are not sufficiently educated in reality to see what lies beyond the screen of dollar signs. I received no emails about issues, but hundreds demanding money from candidates as far away as Texas and Missouri, etc. Issues were discussed by the media, such as this one, that has its own head in the clouds that helped precipitate 2016 and Wednesday's results.
Even I, a lifelong Democrat, have been thoroughly turned off since 2016.
This is not the 1930s of Germany and yet it is more related than not. The cloud people don't like the comparison, but neither did the anti-Russians of Germany. They hated Hitler, but if you'll remember, he won the elections and once installed he grabbed the wheel and ran it off the cliff into Death.
1
The arithmetic of Our Senate are indeed skewed, and have worsened, fast.
Faster still has been the corporatist shillage that the Senate is, now. The lineup of republican Senators who vote against reason, Science and the needs of our country, all while enriching themselves, is apparently unquestioned, now. The vilest of these may be McConnell: orchestrating the entire cabal, he has gotten away with breaking the Senate by such actions as stealing a SCOTUS appointment from Obama. He cares not at all for the damage, and the hardening of the resistance to his ilk. The retaking of our House is only the beginning: they will be called to account, as the damage becomes apparent to even the most bamboozled white supremacist.
13
The US government is already in a crisis of legitimacy. The US Constitution--acknowledged as a fragile, very flawed document even as it was written--collapsed into dust in November 2000. As Madison pointed out, to function properly, the Constitution relies on trust and tacit (sometimes not so tacit) understandings of what should and shouldn't be done.
But in that fateful month, five Republican Supreme Court justices accepted a case over which they had no jurisdiction, interfered with another branch of the government, and--outrageously--threw out the result of a presidential election, in effect overthrowing the government.
The unelected recipient of this illegal largess, George W. Bush, appointed two justices, by definition illegitimate, who found in favor of Citizens United, gutted the Civil Rights Act, erased the 15th Amendment, and made various other indefensible decisions further cementing the confederate, white supremacist model so beloved by the billionaires. And they set the path directly to the also unelected fascist fatso.
So for all intents and purposes the US is now being governed under the Articles of Confederation, which is indeed a Constitutional crisis--because the Constitution no longer exists.
43
I’ve lived in both the big city and the small town. As an educated, white man myself, I began to realize that my college degree was nothing more than a piece of paper that was given to me by some other guy for learning whatever it was he said I needed to know. It doesn’t mean I’m more valuable to society than a person who didn’t get a similar piece of paper. We have men and women in rural communities who produce so much more for our society than the so-called highly educated men and women in the cities. They work hard to produce the food we eat and the products we use that make our lives comfortable. What does Paul Krugman do? He writes articles for The Times. There’s nothing wrong with that, but is what he does as valuable to society as what a farmer does? The farmer may be too busy to even read Paul’s article, but Paul is never too busy to eat the food the farmer produces.
58
@Mark
If you think that the purpose of Dr. Krugman's article is some kind of put down of rural communities, you need to read it again. It's about a fundamental problem in the electoral system in the United States.
"We have men and women in rural communities who produce so much more for our society than the so-called highly educated men and women in the cities." This line of thinking was held dear by the Khmer Rouge. Be careful.
BTW - The primary crops grown by the Midwest grows are soybeans and corn, which are useful but not the basis of balanced nutrition. My produce comes from California; I like eating broccoli and tomatoes in the winter.
116
@Mark: Welcome to Socialism! Hopefully not the Pol Pot or Mao type that forced intellectuals to labor on farms...
27
The Senate population/representation imbalance is a real problem. It's been that way since the founding, but now is getting worse.
Here are the numbers: By 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/?utm_term=.cb99b0570dc5
20
You point is well made, but missing some vital statistics. From Wikipedia, with more importantly a direct link to the US Census Bureau, only 6% of the American population lived in an urban area in 1800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States
Whatever historical reasons for the power held by the Senate (of which there are several), it is time to consider an update to the Constitution to modernize the Senate. Our nation is a vastly different place than it was 220 years ago.
19
"Real America" is the "community" elites want to create and gate for themselves, while treating the rest of America as "flyover country." It is the place where the "values" we want to promote (consumerism, above all) are shielded from the "bags of deplorables." It is the America that disparages our national heritage by calling the Senate an anachronism, states inessential, and arrogates the right to speak for the whole country in its true diversity (versus "Real America's" monochrome enforced "tolerance"). This mentality is not just dividing America; if it insists on this have/have nots division, it will foster civil war.
5
Speaking of inequality...let's reform/eliminate the electoral college, which is a big reason we're in this mess now in the first place.
30
The fact that Senate democrats received more than 12 million votes than Republicans, yet lost seats, should be the biggest story of the election.
Yet again, the popular vote loses to a system that props up conservative rural America, the biggest recipients of affirmative action as it applies to our political system.
While it seems difficult to imagine changing Senate voting system or the Electoral College, nothing will ever change if we don't start talking about this problem.
33
For decades people have been migrating to the "blue" coastal areas in pursuit of good jobs and opportunities.
But, for many, they cannot afford to live there so they have begun to migrate back to "red," "flyover country."
They bring with them the civilizing qualities of tolerance, diversity, love of learning and respect for the rule of law. Jobs in many of these "secondary cities," (Boise, Nashville, Salt Lake, Austin, Phoenix, Fargo) are plentiful and pay well allowing them to live an affordable, comfortable lifestyle even if salaries don't match coastal area cities.
Tulsa, OK., is called the best city in America for young entrepreneurs. Tulsa???? Oklahoma???? OK, I'm just poking a little fun, but who would think?
We saw some of this trend last year when deep red states (WV, KS) had teacher walkouts and voter backlash over conservative tax cutting mania.
Fretting over the structure of the Senate is foolish. Senate apportionment is not subject to the amendment process. ONLY the states themselves can change senate apportionment and none of them are about to vote locally to give up a senator. If, say CA. wanted to ADD a third senator, it would require the affirmative vote of the other 49 states.
Good luck with that.
Th answer is for red states,mired in debilitating social pathologies, to become laboratories for the experiment of having blue state migrants show them why the 476 counties won by Hillary can produce 2/3rds of the nation's GDP.
10
If you don't like the fact that certain states have less say in the Senate, gather up a few of your friends (it won't take that many of you) and move to North Dakota or Wyoming. Then you can have the extra representation and electoral college advantage for your views.
6
"We may, then, be looking at a growing crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system — even if we get through the constitutional crisis that seems to be looming over the next few months."
This closing comment above from the article carries a lot of weight, particularly the first half. The stage unfortunately is set for a vote of no-confidence by the only vote left for some which is often violent according to history. And what do Republicans like almost more than tax-cuts for the rich, is to call in the military - which could play into some mobster-like leaders.... However, this is also where heroes will be forged; as in who's version of history will be told in the future... Scary times...
Wow. Based on the posted comments it appears that Paul Krugman has really kicked a beehive here.
It seems the coastal elites (that's sarcasm) are getting tired of the historical political structures that have made Donald Trump and the republican senate possible. If you do away with these historical anomalies the Republicans will have to sell their ideas in order to get elected.
127
Dirt Senators - all acreage, no people.
5
Real America IS Senate America
4
Hopefully the next two years will be about tying the God-awful Trump in knots until his clock runs out and he is shown the door.
Four years of this tragedy is the price of installing this con-man
8
"how do we explain those Senate losses?"
By nominating blacks in racist states is one explanation. The Dems gave away Georgia and Florida.
Sadly, the south will NEVER change. Racism and apathetic black voters will guarantee it.
3
Your article now makes me wonder if we should Impeach this white nationalist that is our president... If we do, will it stop the Senate from jamming the courts with right wingers? If that cult of ridiculous white men who jammed Kavanaugh to our now unreliable Supreme Court with such power and resources be able to do the same without trump?
Again ~~ so many things to figure out!
1
This article and its sentiment is why I dislike Krugman so much. First of all he’s an economist, and then an economist pondering on politics and history, a deadly combination. His disregard and pompous, elitist interpretation of the election results is embarrassing and pretentious. As a life long New Yorker I take offense at his characterization of urban America as “real” America , whatever that means. I guess people living in Cincinnati are not “real” Americans? Also, the Constitution is unfair because it gives equal representation to all states in th Senate. Please don’t insult my intelligence Mr. Krugman. You, like so many prefer a document that bends to your whims and desires not unlike the proto-fascists on the right who want it to say something else. That document, unique in the history of mankind, has served us well for 230 years. Perfect no. Better than the opinions of an economist yes.
11
Is there a more useless , worthless screed than the u s constitution ? Trump has shown that document to be farcical since it’s incubation . No better example of “ fake news “ than that discourse !
… and to win the White House they absolutely have to cheat....
6
"Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism,"
Krugman hasn't been paying attention to some of the ant-Semitic acts in NYC lately. I don't think all the perps were white nationalists:
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/update-duo-accused-of-drawing-swastikas-on-brooklyn-homes-arrested/
4
good article but why didn’t you mention the senate’s origins in slavery as well
4
Good article!!!!
2
Nazi germany was populist democracy, rule by the majority,
with no protection of various minorities, political, ethnic or
religious.
The US was designed as a Democratic Republic in order
to prevent the AUTOCRACY of a Monarch, an Aristocracy, a Plutocracy or Majority of the MOST, so easily enflamed by a charismatic leader, good or bad.
On a micro level, that is the simplistic justice and ruling
a Lynch mob.
Hey, let's do the same thing in criminal trials
Majority decision 7-5, good enought for a GUILTY verdict.
How insane, right, that one juror can force the non-conviction of an indicted citizen. SO old fashioned, right?
Those fourth, fifth and sixth amendments: let's MODERNIZE
them also.
4
So let's see, Donald Trump sells anti-Semitism. That is an illogical leap. His daughter and many of his grandchildren are Jewish. His son-in- law Jared Kusher is a trusted Jewish adviser. Are you saying he loves his family but at the same time sells anti-Semitism. It is absurd to this college and post graduate, educated, urban reader to say that and it belittles the positions you take in the remainder of your piece.
40
Checks and balances are one thing, but tyranny of the minority is certainly not a virtue. The filibuster, for all its faults, made it difficult for a simple majority in the Senate (possibly representing an undemocratic minority of the population) to take positive action and required broad compromise. In that sense, the filibuster somewhat mitigated the undemocratic nature of the Senate. The filibuster is dead, so how about this: On matters where the Senate votes alone (such as judicial appointments and other Presidential appointments, treaties), require both a majority of Senators and Senators representing a majority of the population to take action. I don't hold much hope for implementing it, but it would correct a design flaw.
4
The nice symmetries that Madison and Hamilton put in the Constitution to stymie majorities and protect oligarchies are now a glaring reality. Much as the segregationists controlled the Senate through the filibuster the undemocratic character of the Senate is one its most characteristic features. Thomas Edsall's article yesterday shows that Republican's control of the Senate has become a place of Republican impunity.
2
Two thoughts for what they are worth.
One, on a practical level admit Puerto Rico and split California into a North and South California. Both can be achieved by the peoples of the affected jurisdictions and the approval of Congress.
Two, craft a Constitutional Amendment that gives all states 2 Senate seats but uses a statistical formulation of a threshold percentage of the national population as determined by the census to award a 3rd Senate seat. Set the threshold somewhere between the 2010 census population percentage of North Carolina and Illinois when the House was last reapportioned.
These measures would add somewhere between 5 and 10 new Senates plus the 4 created by the new admitted states.
3
In 1790 The U.S. was made up of 13 quasi-independent states. Today, the U.S. is made up of 50 interdependent states plus territories. That is a radical change that has not been compensated for in the Constitution.
5
How about this. There can be only one Senator in each state from any party. That would force compromise in the Senate and something reasonable may get done.
1
A really simple fix for part of this would be to abolish the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. Another very simple change would be to have national or at least simultaneous primaries. When I took civics class it was pretty clearly understood that the framers envisioned some counterbalance that would help give voice to people in the hinterlands. I don't think the electoral college or the wacky timing of the primaries is enshrined or loved by anyone.
1
We have the American version of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism now. In each a small, far-right, very unrepresentative minority controls and dictates.
113
@traveling wilbury...while collecting rents on our addictions to petroleum.
6
The “wise” founders were, at day’s end, a bunch of rich white guys who owned land and mostly wanted to protect them and their’s - thus, the Senate. In this day and age, my ‘hood, the Upper West Side, has more people than some of these Western states. It’s time we addressed this.
4
Paul Krugman, your column is the total reverse of Bret Stevens' article; do you journalist ever have conferences about the plight of America.
So, you fault "red America" for residing in rural America, since you apparently are not jealous of "red America," then stop complaining that you feel cheated out of land, space and the "electoral college."
You chose to live in a posh urban mecca with people breathing the next persons carbon dioxide exhale, get over it.
The founders divided the country so that every state had an opportunity to have as many people as the people so choose, and so the people chose.
You can not take the electoral vote from the red states; be content to live in your posh urban abode as keep your face covered with a mask.
6
@JRS: I was born into political irrelevance in the heart of New York City.
And u are OK that our “posh” taxes support you in the red states?
1
...always a problem with the upper houses, best summarised by Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1989 referring to the Australian Senate as "this unrepresentative swill".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1khlbqI9k
1
"crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system" U.S. was not founded as a "democracy" but to ensure white 1% ruled with a bias to slaveholders as to representation and Electoral College. U.S. presently has evolved into a criminal and corrupt corporate 1% inverted totalitarian state masquerading as a democracy infected with distorting racism. Yes, certainly the Senate reflects the founding structure as presently unreasonable when Wyoming has the same Senatorial representation as California and New York. However, compared to “Citizens United” and Republican fascist Trumpism minority control, well! We cannot even bring ourselves to conduct our elections like our neighbor Canada!
5
One thing many are not realizing is that the demographics of the American Wastelands is rapidly becoming similar to those in every continent with rapid urbanization (in Asia; Africa; South America; even Europe): a deep and rapid internal "refugee migration" of those who can migrate - through talent and education - is literally fleeing the country for the city.
The rest are left behind, with no future ahead of them. They realize unconsciously that -- elderly, drug-ridden, sick, frail, sparse and poor as they are -- they are absolutely no match for the young, eager, intrepid refugees and migrants from around the world arriving daily. They are rapidly being displaced with, simply, better workers.
If the Senate had any sympathy for these internally failed American migrants, they'd give them welfare and support in place to let them live out the remainder of their miserable lives. But the current Senate has no such welfare agenda for these people. They are the real refugees who never made good.
We're all migrants and refugees from somewhere here in the US. Those who've made it to the urban Promised Land would support those left behind in the countryside.... if they weren't the GOP plutocrats in the Senate sucking the rest of the life out their constituency.
Let's help these poor people, pity them, and get rid of the GOP crime syndicate in Washington, DC as a first step.
5
People in those red states feel that Democrats like Paul Krugman spit on them with every word they write and speak. The disdain and contempt is as clear as day. Go ahead, Paul, go elect a few more Republicans. Write another column about flyover country.
8
@Tom: At least Trump never makes anyone feel uneducated by using a word they might need to look up in a dictionary.
2
The problem of course is the Constitution
which gives the smaller red states more
power and the former slave states
keep sending reactionaries to Congress
word
Of course, as much as this may be emotionally satisfying for Mr. Krugman to write, it is inaccurate. Florida. Arizona.
2
Did I miss something? I thought a course in US Government was required in virtually ALL states.
All these people raving on and on about the "unfairness" of the Senate and the Electoral College. About how we simply must "just change it"! First of all, I don't seem to recall that anyone thought either institution was "unfair" during any years in which a Democrat was President, or when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Second, are these writers truly so uneducated (gee, I thought that was ONLY Trump supporters and Republicans!) that they are unaware that only an Amendment to the US Constitution can change this? Are they also unaware of Article Five of the Constitution? It takes 2/3 of the House and Senate to vote to present this to the states, and 3/4 of the states must ratify this!!!!
Do you honestly think that the very members who would lose all power would vote to give up their representation as it is now? In what parallel universe are you living?
Get over it! It's NOT going to happen! Oh - now we have a few people calling for a "revolution". Do they think they will win? Who owns all the guns?
This national temper tantrum being thrown by disgruntled Democrats who are not getting their own way is nothing less than appalling. If you think this is going to convince anyone to vote YOUR way, you are delusional. You are seen as a bunch of whining, poor losers who are very ignorant about our own form of government.
9
Over the long term if demographic trends continue, the rural states will become emptier and browner as old white people die off in farm country and immigrants take their place. Even in white edens like Kansas, there are beginning to be more people in the cities than out in farm country and urban people prefer Democrats.
Not only that, but as a Democrat in Wyoming....Help!!
4
The midterms showed that a healthy American democracy is on the comeback trail. Democrats now just have to stop getting into a tizz every time Trump shocks them.
2
"Senate America is still very white"
Sounds segregated like your NYC public school system.
But still keep pointing the finger at others, maybe that'll get keep your public schools segregated with the approval of all the liberal and progressive minded folks in NYC.
"white, and are more likely than not to reside outside big, racially diverse metropolitan areas — because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites"
Living in "diverse metropolitan areas" says nothing about an individual's outlook on race. When we were among the few white families remaining in our near east side Detroit neighborhood most of the white liberals had already moved on to safer and more white areas. Many became firebrands in Ann Arbor (right on!). In the meantime my family and friends learned how to become good Republicans. We learned that from living in the inner-city of Detroit. Go figure, eh?
4
As ever, Mr. Krugman makes an eloquent - and elegant - argument. As a liberal Democrat, I too was disappointed by the Senate election results and, as Mr. Krugman, concerned over the rise of white nationalism (if not supremacist movements) that Trump and his minions are fomenting. But is changing the Senate the solution?
What bothers me is the seeming underlying assumption that "big, racially diverse metropolitan areas" and the surrounding suburbs with an educated electorate are somehow going to guide the United States to what - in the terms of the MacArthur Foundation - would be "a more just, verdant society." Really? "Racial animosity and fear of immigration" are equally rampant in the major cities and suburbs, areas that are also combined with concentrations of the 1% who are not adverse to much of the Trump agenda. Some of those areas (including those with "large numbers of highly educated workers," as Silicon Valley) also have highly misogynistic cultures.
I wish I could believe the presence of racial and cultural diversity - with highly educated (college) workers - would bring the results Mr. Krugman proposes. But even in those "big, racially diverse metropolitan areas," ethos is mostly white and male.
Another bad thing about the Senate is that the District of Colubmia is disenfranchised in that body (as it is in the House, but at least the House has a delegate).
The District of Columbia has more people living in that small space than there is in the entire of Wyoming or Vermont.
There should be a new boundary for the District of Columbia and the rest of Washington should be made into a state. That boundary should go from the Capitol Building along the National Mall to the Potomac and from the Washington Monument to the White House.
Then the remaining space - the space where all the currently disenfranchised live - will form a new state with its one voting representative and two senators, putting it on par with all of those small states.
3
I'm enjoying the comments on this column and thoughtful debate from both sides. I grew up in Idaho, and heard the argument about small states needing two senators so that their economic interests would be protected. Now I'm a more progressive person in a purple state, and the system looks quite a bit different. I can't decide which is fairer.
However, we are facing an enormous environmental disaster on a global scale, and making progress to mitigate the effects of climate change is stymied by the economic interests of rural populations, especially states like Wyoming and North Dakota which rely heavily on oil extraction for employment and profit.
What we are seeing now is environmental disregard for the sake of economic concerns that could be at least mitigated by a Senate that represents population distribution, as Mr. Krugman favors, simply by how the two parties have branded themselves. Democrats would do more for climate change because that's what large cities want them to do.
There's no way this could have been foreseen by the framers. Now we're stuck with inaction because people need jobs, and two senators from an oil-producing state have as much sway as two senators from a coastal, populous state. So what do we do about that?
2
I think it would be a great thing to be more inclusive with rural communities. We urban dwellers are one group and then there's the rest of the country that is more isolated. How we can connect is a mystery but it really needs to happen. The rage against Trumpists is really misplaced. We should be angry that there are swaths of voters who in their isolation look to defend themselves from what they don't know and can't really articulate. Minorities are easy targets because they look different from whites. Tribalism is a fact of life and we must work to bridge the gaps.
45
@Suzanne Wheat Suzanne. Your concern about us not dissing the rural members of our country is admirable, but does not help this takeover of real power by the rural right wing. If the framers had arranged that mountain dwellers had 5 times the voting power of those living in places threatened by rising sea levels, it would be easy to criticise that as both a perversion of voting rights and an unfortunate arrangement for dealing with the costs of climate change. Likewise the humanity of those in our sanctuary cities is being controlled by many who have less experience with (and therefore more fear of) immigrants in places like Wyoming and Utah.
13
@WHM Thank you for your reply. I didn't say that change would happen fast. Personally, if I had to choose . . . Well, in fact I have. For me immigrants are more important--especially those who are walking to our border seeking asylum. We should welcome and protect them first. If necessary, we should take them into our homes for safety. My door is open.
5
@Suzanne Wheat
I would argue that tribakism is a fact of ignorance, not a fact of life.
11
PK is exactly right. The realities of the 21st Century United States are butting up against a Constitutional compromise created in the 18th century designed to protect the interests of each state, no matter how small.
Canvassing in one state, Texas, during the election, I was encouraged by one striking fact: the large number of Texas immigrants I encountered who are legal permanent residents awaiting citizenship. These are Hispanics, Africans, Indians, Vietnamese, Chinese -- from every part of the globe. Many do not yet speak English. They are harbingers of change, I believe.
Relying on demographic change to protect our majoritarian democracy will take time. For the immediate future, the Democratic Party must, at the first opportunity that it controls Congress and the Presidency, enact statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, both which have larger populations than several existing states.
130
@Paul Krugman
These are many of same problems which plagued the 1787 convention which came to a consensus through extensive horse-trading and good luck. Short of a new convention or the confluence of serious political violence and suspension of habeas corpus and the posse comitatus laws, the prospects for consensus change over the next few years seem small.
We are a democratic republic, not a purely representative democracy. This form was chosen for good reasons. Why can't we celebrate its advantages?
2
The system was designed for protection of minority interests. The basis of checks-and-balances is that no majority is so great that it can ignore the minority interests. No power is so great as to not have to consider opposing political power. In this case the minority living in rural areas, whose economy we still all depend on.
A country dominated by a Democratic party majority living on the coasts and a few other big cities, under a pure democracy, would ignore the interests of a good 3/4ths of the land area. This would give way to the disintegration of the nation into culturally and economically homogeneous regions, irrespective of population density--probably via succession of states and regions. This is the situation we are headed to, which is made worse by one-person one-vote democracy that ignores the constitutional principal of federalism.
I pose another question. Would you impose the same pure democracy on the European Union and ignore its states? I don't think so.
4
An interesting column as always. It has long been true that Americas' rural areas are shrinking, with the population loss consisting mostly of young, talented people who either cannot make a living in rural America, or who are pursuing interests that are best served in urban America.
The irony is the internet was supposed to change that. Folks in rural America believed their children would be able to stay home, but still have high-paying, forward-looking work simply by being connected online. That vision has not come to fruition.
Paul Keating, an ex Australian Prime Minister described the Senate as “Unrepresentative swill”. He had and has a way of getting to the heart of the matter. Two words vs a whole column. :)
54
Actually, we have overlooked the obvious; The Senate Republicans representation is limited to their echo chamber into which big money and outspoken fringe right wing spokespeople have influence. Rural America is simply following the off the rails narratives, not generating them.
1
Voting in the 21st century
America is the country of innovation and looks to solve problems using it; we are in love with it! However, with it comes all sorts of other problems that we have not figured out how to solve or have not yet addressed. To name a few are hacking, electronic viruses and job loss from automation & AI (Artificial Intelligence). In the case of Voting in America, I argue that technology is not the solution. A manual solution would address most of the current concerns of Voting in America, specifically: electoral fraud; tampering with electronic voting devices; ballot stuffing and the suppression of voting rights. Three states have such a system, they are Colorado, Oregon and Washington. They conduct all elections by mail, a ballot is automatically mailed to every registered voter in advance of Election Day, and traditional in-person voting precincts are not available. The pro’s of this solution are: it’s less expensive to run elections; there is a paper trail that can be used for recounts (or investigations); one ballot per person (not ballot stuffing); employers don’t have to give people time off work to vote (increased productivity) and increased voter participation just to name a few. Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Earl Blumenauer introduced a bill to expand vote-by-mail nationwide last year (2017), which went nowhere. This is NOT a partisan issue and should not be treated as such.
2
The Senate operates as a check on democracy. It was designed to represent the interests of the states and cool the passions of the much more democratic House.
Its amazing how ignorant lefties are of our history and Constitution and how cavalier they are in discarding our time tested political institutions to serve their short term political desires.
By the way, how’s that Krugman recession panning out? Should we expect it to hit any day now, along with the Russia indictments?
4
"I find it helpful to contrast the real America, the place we actually live, with what I think of as “Senate America,” the hypothetical nation implied by a simple average across states, which is what the Senate in effect represents."
I live in these United States of America. How I wish our intelledtuals would stop usurping the title; "American/America". There are three American continents, we share the North American one with Canada and Mexico. Get to the "real America".
If I was setting out to sell shares of stock in the Brooklyn Bridge, I wouldn’t be taking my act to Brooklyn...
1
Perfectly said.
NYT you are a part of the problem!. Please remove the paywall for Trump/national news! Uninformed people who rely on Fox because it is free are true disenfranchised. Please allow everyone to see the TRUTH about their crazy president. I, and many others, will continue to pay our monthly fee to see all the rest of the news. Don't fault the people who only watch/read Fox because it is all they can afford. During floods and natural disasters, you remove the paywall. Please do it now to reveal our crazy ( and I mean crazy) president. thanks.
1
This is the problem of the electoral college in a different guise. Neither problem will ever be remedied by constitutional amendments. Do you have any concrete suggestions? The Urban States of America should secede. Will that trigger a second civil war? Or are you just complaining?
@James Ricciardi: How many generations do people have to be dead before they are no longer politically relevant?
1
Count voters not cows!
LA COUNTY'S 10+ Million PEOPLE is more than 10 STATES and DC combined!
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
Alaska
North Dakota
District of Columbia
Vermont
Wyoming ...
... combined have only 9.8 million.
5
This overweighting of rural areas is obvious insenatey.
4
MLK's Law: Nothing melts faster than racism when it has to sit beside by the object of its hate.
43
Of course we could always re-draw the borders of all 50 states, to in effect 'un-gerrymander' the Senate.
What do you say, residents of the new state of Dakota-mont-aho?
We should be a nation of democracy we say we are. 1 person, 1 vote. End of story.
The GOP has money-balled our election system to the point of insanity. They will never stop until they don't have the power.
The GOP is a minority party that represents more land than people.
This country seems to be on a apartheid like path were a small all white rural minority will use the Senate and that relic of slavery to impose its will and its values on the majority.
1
If our system of Senate representation makes sense to you, that's solely because you're used to it. Imagine a similar system in a different country. If you learned in your high school geography class that in France everyone got one vote, except that people who lived in the Bordeaux region each got ten votes, you would think that's nuts.
How nutty it is, is especially apparent when it results in the last two Supreme Court Justices getting confirmed despite being voted against by Senators who represent a majority of the American people. Imagine how that would sound to you if it occurred in some other country.
2
Rural white folks are acting like lords bend on subjugating the many; this kink in US democracy is akin to the old power of latifundia against the city folks, a form of tyranny indeed. The US Constitution must, must be amended!
1
You guys do realize where all that food in your grocery store originates, right?
3
Comparing the most populous state of California to Wyoming to demonstrate how the Senate is drastically overweighted toward Republican Party representation doesn't reflect reality. Rhode Island, Delaware, and Vermont are kinda small. After we figure out who won in Florida and Arizona, let's use all the data to analyze the true extent of this overweight issue.
Awesome article Mr.Krugman, I especially like this line "because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants". I am a South Asian Muslim and the children of immigrant parents. I moved out of NYC to somewhat rural, small town America (at least by Maryland standards) partly because of lower cost of living and house prices, but also because I want to show my neighbors that my family and I are not to be feared despite the color of my skin and my wife's head covering....
"We are your neighbors, we have nothing but love for you, and we just want the best for us and our children while making a positive impact on society".
I hope more people like me will follow in my path and just maybe we can change the perceptions of a few people who have an open heart.
This might be helped by the digital workplace allowing more people to work remotely.
3
Interesting that Mr Krugman uses the term "shellacking" to characterize the Democratic win in the House with a pickup of presuambaly 30 seats. I wonder what term he used to characterize Obama's loss of 63 Democratic seats in the house in 2010?
4
The Electoral College is a racist-based entity and has been from the very beginning and Senate races are closely tied to the Electoral College. The House of Representatives, aka The People's House, is the actual entity of the people using the popular vote totals. Conservatives only win when using racist-based forums to advance their agenda.
1
It may be time for a history lesson here. There is a reason this country is called the United States of America. It is a federation of States each of which had to be persuaded to join the union, which is why there is a Senate set up the way it is. Perhaps Professor Krugman should get in his time machine and undo that.
2
Most writers here seem to connect the rationale for the US Senate representation scheme to the differences between states with respect to size and population. I think these issues were secondary to the huge cultural issue that eventually tore the nation apart: slavery in uneasy coexistence with liberty.
1
Why not just do what has been done before and split up some big states? North NY, West NY, and the state of NYC. North, Central. and South CA. East and West TX, North and South FL, etc. The above yields 12 more senators, and many other splits are possible. Plus PR and DC = 16. There is nothing magical about the 100 number. We didn't have it when I was a kid, we had 96. If we allowed a split for each, say, 10MM people, there would be even more.
2
"For economic and demographic trends have interacted with political change to make the Senate deeply unrepresentative of American reality."
Dear Paul,
Your basic premise is false. The Senate was not designed to be representative of American reality - that's what the House is for. This "Great Compromise" is partly what held us together after the failure of the Articles of Confederation where there was only a one-house Congress.
More importantly, senators were originally chosen by state legislatures because senators were seen as ambassadors for the states so each state, regardless of size, would have an equal voice. In your terms, Paul, it was designed to protect the minority (smaller states) from being run over roughshod by the larger states.
The 17th Amendment screwed up that protection. Sure, the impetus was noble - get the influence of wealthy industrialists (money) out of state houses so people like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Getty and Carnegie could not "buy" senators. Fair enough. But how much money was funneled into the Texas senate race from all over the country? Where is the fundamental difference?
Here's a suggestion, Paul. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Let everyone play "long game". If the Senate is that important, let LOCAL interests determine the makeup of their state legislatures who will, in turn, select their senators. And let's quit this notion that somehow the Senate was designed to be representative of the country's diversity.
4
The Constitution--a product of its time and politics--was crafted because most of the Founders were keen students of history--particularly Roman history. They were aware that the Roman Republic, even though it endured for over 1,000 years, foundered when oligarchy rose to state-threatening levels and power concentrated (ultimately) in one man.
So the Constitution was designed to counteract what they saw as the fatal flaw of any Republic...by, essentially, creating so damn many impediments to the condensing and consolidation of power that the institutions of our hopeful little Republic would outlast any attempt to produce the American Augustus (or, more important, Caligula).
Damned if it hasn't worked awfully well. I can't actually see what Prof. Krugman would replace it with...and how it could be done, at least within the lifespan of most Americans.
3
Sucks that that pesky U.S. constitution gets in the way though.
3
The Senate needs to become non-partisan.
There could be slow but steady change if Senators owed no allegiance to a political party. If campaign contribution were limited to $500, payable only by a person living in that state, PACs would be limited.
Think about it...can't change the constitution, so change the nature of the office holders.
Hmm - I can hear the party loyalists screaming even before I hit submit.
As one of those oddities who grew up on a farm, I do have some feelings around a need for representation that insures rural areas aren't forsaken. But I also know that in so many small towns - as well as rust belt remnants - the population is old; there are not a lot of children who grew to adulthood and stayed around. Could the Founders imagine what we have? Our elite 'farmers' Washington and Jefferson had enterprises which were multifaceted and nearly self sufficient, not single crop or single animal operations on thousands of acres. (Of course, they had slaves, now many agribusinesses - even larger surviving family farms -depend on undocumented aliens).
In the midwest, there are many huge agribusinesses. The overweighted Senate representation actually can end up giving corporate farms more power than individuals. Don't have any numbers on this, but it might be revealing research.
What would be the means of divvying up Senate seats more equitably?
In an alternate and reasonable universe we would have a 21st Century National Constitutional Convention. Changes have to be made so that states like California will get the representation that it deserves. Wyoming with fewer than 600,000 people should get one senator. A two block area in Manhattan could have 600,000 people. NYC could have two senators which would give New York State a total of four senators. The electoral college which is antiquated should be done away with, so that presidential candidates will have a real count of how the country voted. Finally, changes could be made to the second amendment to eliminate automatic weapon ownership. But this is all a fantasy and it is never ever going to happen. The majority is going to be held captive by a rural minority Senate.
3
I live in Texas with an estimated 2018 population of 28.7 million and a fairly large land area. It has been apparent for a long time that states with fewer people than my city have have much more representation in the Senate than Texas. Texas is neither east coast nor west coast but endures the same lack of Senate representation. Mr. Krugman is correct in pointing out the ever growing problem with the current federal system of representation.
2
The U.S. Senate:
1.) Two Senate seats regardless of population. 600,000 residents of Wyoming - 2 Senators. 39,000,000 residents of California - 2 Senators. As it stands now, 50% of the Senate represents only 17% of the population, and that will only get more lopsided as time goes on.
2.) Senate terms are 2 years longer than the President's and 3x longer than House terms.
3.) Sole responsibility for confirming cabinet members and judgeships as a check on the executive branch.
4.) Sole responsibility for ratifying treaties and trade agreements.
With all due respect to the founding fathers (who lived in a time when automatic rifles, nuclear bombs and social media didn't exist, but chattel slavery did), doesn't anyone else see this as completely dysfunctional?
5
To recast the Senate to a more representative construct is impossible. It would require an earth-shaking, probably total rewrite of the Constitution which everyone knows in this political climate is a non-starter. Even if it were possible, would we dare risk having the 1st and 2nd Amendments up for grabs and redefined by the likes of Trump, McConnell and Wayne LaPierre?
Better, I think, to work our way back along that long, LONG road to the idea of a noble Senate free from the grip of Trump-terror and rank partisanship; that getting-reelected-by-any-means mindset that disallows red state Senators the freedom of conscience the framers had hoped would guide their hearts. That’s a road long off the American map, but it must be there somewhere.
That, plus a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine killed by the Reagan administration might do it. The FD would mandate that all news outlets – and most applicably to Sinclair and Fox – must give equal air time to opposing views. This is what we had up until the California Cowboy and it worked perfectly. Think of it – 30 minutes of Hannity followed by 30 minutes of Maddow on the same Fox channel. That’s where the turn around to sanity just might happen; in the electorate where all this mess started in the first place.
Paul, before sending, I just reviewed the above and realize that it reads like the opening credits to that old TV show Fantasy Island. “De plane, De plane”. Well, we can dream, I suppose.
1
Washington DC has a population of over 700000 -- 100,000 more than Wyoming; Puerto Rico has a population just over 4 million. Why do these territories not have representation in the senate? And, with smaller populations, why don't the US Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianna Islands? These people deserve representation in the senate.
1
Breaking up large population states like Texas and California into multiple smaller states would be one fix to the problem of unequal Senate representation. In that case my region of Texas would likely send Democrats to the Senate.
Paul Krugman encourages us to examine how the creation of an anti-democratic America remains a major barrier to solving problems rooted in racism, sexism, and severe income inequities resulting from inadequately restrained capitalism. Indeed, we must challenge mythological views of America’s anti-democratic origins, history, and current practices. The Founders feared and opposed a democracy based on majority rule and created a republic with governing power limited to land-owning, white men excluding white men without property, women, and black and indigenous people. The Founders created the anti-democratic Electoral College allowing slave states to have disproportionate Congressional representation by counting slaves 3/5 of a human being. And this was a compromise with northern states' arguments that slaves could not be counted because they were property. This not only legitimized slavery but also created the basis for over 100 years Jim Crow brutality and terror. As is clear from 2018 voter nullification efforts, the disenfranchisement of black and other people of color continues to this day. White supremacy remains as American as the 4th of July.
2
I'm afraid the only way forward is some division of the country into a forward-looking one (the coasts, upper midwest), and the rural status-quo one. Otherwise the US is doomed to its present paralyzed mediocrity, hobbled by the backward-looking Senate, while China and other nations assume the world leadership once enjoyed by America.
1
Other than changing the Constitution, which is impossible, the only thing Democrats can do is defeat the very party that blinks and closes its eyes at diversity at the local level.
GOP senators are old and stuck in 1970 for the most part. That fact means that they wont last long. Stacking courts with extremists means that people will just ignore their pronouncements.
This is an 18 inning game and the Democrats have to focus on local issues and local jobs if they want to make any headway with the country folks. Keep up with the big city snob attitudes, and they will continue to lose in the country. Nobody in a small red town cares about transgender bathrooms! (even though I do).
For all those referring to the founding fathers, they left it to the states- which, at the beginning, deemed only white male property owners to vote. Granted, I do believe the current GOP would be quite happy with that. However, we have added amendments as times have changed, and the shift in population warrants a change. The founders couldn't have imagined the lop-sided urban vs. rural population we have today.
1
You've been reading my mail. Seems the only fair way to fix the senate is to divide the votes according to the state's population. But wouldn't that make the senate somewhat redundant?
1
The electoral college is an obsolete institution and should be eliminated although the odds of that happening are dismal.
What could happen to level the Supreme Court would be to add two justices when/if democrats win the presidency and get control of the senate (while retaining the House), a tall order to be sure. The only way to prevail over Republican cheating (voter suppression, dark money, ‘culture wars’) is for Democrats to create an overwhelming national ‘ground game’ of voter turnout, especially in rural areas that (hopefully) trumps republican cheating.
Also, it would be interesting if wealthy democrats could create a program of supporting young people who could be encouraged to move to low population rural states. As well,if enlightened companies would open branches in these same states, that would create job opportunities for young residents who otherwise look to move away, and for those who move to these states.
As a Californian of more than 35 years it enrages me that the votes in states like N & S Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, et al, count 5 to 8 times more than ours do. That is NOT what the founding fathers planned for.
1
I am one of the “majority” described in this article: college-educated and live in a large metro area. Still, I hesitate to endorse the implications of the argument, for they lead to a drive to change the structure of the legislative branch. The House and the Senate were designed differently precisely to allow for different kinds of representation. In effect, this serves to protect the rights of the minority. “There, but for the grace of God, go I” is one of my guiding principles. There may well come a day when today’s “majority” is tomorrow’s “minority” at which point we will be glad for some protections. This political division must instead be overcome through means of persuasion and attrition. To be sure, this is a much longer game, but the best way, it seems to me, to avoid havoc or worse consequences down the road.
2
@Andrew Stuckey: The US Senate was contrived to preserve a coexistence of agrarian slave states and mercantile free states under a scheme of unequally protective law by limiting their powers over each other.
Given the power of Senate and how its election is set up, this should not go on. So what is the solution? Constitutional changes would be impossible to make. The way to go forward may be offer statehood to Wash DC and Puerto Rico and demand some kind of a reasonable solution without which we should not continue with the the Union as is. I would like to hear of the solutions from Mr Krugman and others on this issue.
3
The Senate's structure (two per state regardless of pop.) nullifies the founding principle of our government: "that all men are created equal". It trashes our 14th Amendment guarantee "to the equal protection of the laws".
Because of this flawed structure EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION passes or fails on the say of a minority of citizens. Remember, the Senate alone, independently, has veto power over every law.
From day one the Senate's structure enshrined 'minority rule' in America. We have never been a true democracy and in fact, as more citizens choose to live in/near cities we move further from democracy all the time.
How do we right this heinous wrong, since to amend the Constitution is also firmly controlled by a minority (amendments can be blocked by one fourth of states)? Perhaps it's time to take up Thomas Jefferson's remedy: "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing".
4
@nothin2hide: Laughter is the best medicine. This whole situation really is ridiculous.
Prof. Krugman, If the Democrats ever succeed in getting the presidency, the Senate, and the House at the same time (it is not hopeless), what would you think of substantial revisions to the Supreme Court and other federal courts - specifically expanding their size to dilute the power of all the fringe right wing justices and judges appointed by Trump? If not, what would you recommend?
The Constitution is a deeply flawed document in a number of ways. Still embedded in it are the compromises the Founders had to write in order to cater to slaveholders. That includes not only the Senate and the Electoral College, but the Second Amendment ("militias" to put down slave rebellions) and Tenth Amendment as well.
Those who point out the brilliance of the Founding Fathers never mention the Civil War, a direct result of the three-fifths compromise. How much blood was shed to remove that?
The US may have had a happier past and a more democratic present under some version of the parliamentary system.
1
@Rey Buono: The US and Canada are a side by side comparison of the two systems, with similar immigrant and remnant native populations.
The Parliamentary system traces back almost a millennium, to the Magna Carta, to respect the right and power of people (the nobility of the time) to self-organize into groups to represent common interests as political parties. It was a long evolutionary process in development.
1
Prof. Krugman, we are not being divided by some accident of nature. Americans are being divided because BOTH political parties find campaigning on hot-button personal-id issues less troubling to their corporate donor class. And it’s the Democrats that are more wedded to racially divisive issues than Republicans.
I say that as a 36-year Democratic progressive activist and former Democratic Party state legislator from central Illinois.
Oh, before you dismiss my comments, I voted FOR banning assault weapons, for public funding for abortions, and I am 30 year supporter of Medicare for All while representing the second highest rural and Republican legislative district in Illinois.
I have read most of your books, and at one time respected your commentary. But you have gone off the rails. Honestly, next time you look in the mirror you will see the reason Republicans are gaining a lock on the Senate.
2
@Bill Edley: The Democratic view on race is that, underneath various superficial externalities representing environmental adaptations, we all share the same senses and set of emotions in unique and individualistic ways.
3
Regarding the much greater "red" area on the map covering most rural areas, I would be much happier about that if those senators representing the rural countryside were acting more as guardians of our natural treasures and the environment. Yet ironically it is not the people representing the countryside who care about preserving nature and work to do something about climate change. They seem most against these things.
They may be acting as their constituents' proxy, but they are not good guardians for the land they represent.
2
@Treetop: Nowadays, folks should be just as happy when a land man comes around offering to lease land for wind turbines as for oil wells.
Wyoming has slightly more than one-sixth the population of California; Guam has slightly more than one-sixth the population of Wyoming. Why not Guam? And, the same case can be made for the US Virgin Islands.
This is not an easy question. Australia copied the US structure when we were writing our constitution in the 1890's. The Senate is the state's house. The 500,000 residents of Tasmania have the same Senate representation as the 8 million in New South Wales. This was part of the negotiation that achieved Federation in 1901. The smaller states were - rightly - concerned that their needs would be unimportant to the larger, more economically significant states. The Sentate was the compromise solution.
I'd put a different question to the Democratic Party. Why is it that voters in those small states support a party that isn't the least bit interested in them or their problems? The GOP governs for the benefit of the top 1%. These rural Americans are being used; manipulated to vote agains their own best interests. What is the missing competence in the Democratic Party that seems to make it incapable of connecting with these voters?
1
The answer to your question — why do Rs do so well in mostly white, mostly uneducated, rural areas, and why can’t the Democrats reach those voters — is fairly easy to see, alas. I’m an American expat, dual citizen, living in Queensland. Why does One Nation do well here, in the rural areas like Maryborough?
It’s the same answer: bigotry and xenophobia, exercised at the voting booth by white folks. The Democrats aren’t ever going to have a message (I hope) that caters to that.
@Michael O'Farrell: The Democratic Party has no ins with God and no post-mortal rewards to promise anyone.
@Michael O'Farrell
It is well past time to stop blaming Democrats and the Democratic party for the willful ignorance of many Republican voters. When presented with sound economic arguments and solid candidates, they remain unswayed. The Trump voter has disproportionate political power; let's not continue to give him disproportionate air time as well. Let them connect with us, for a change. Let them join the 21st century.
I agree, it is an unfortunate reality that the U.S Senate is not at all representative of our diverse population, but that isn't likely to change anytime soon, given that would take a constitutional amendment.
Still, even in most rural states there are pockets of urban enlightenment that are growing and are growingly blue. This election in my state of Montana, Democrat Jon Tester won reelection by carrying the same handful of urban, better educated more diverse counties that he has always relied on to come through for him. He lost in about 90 percent of the state's counties and 90 percent of the land area, but he won huge majorities in places like Missoula, Bozeman, and Great Falls. And he won there largely because of massive get-out-the-vote campaigns focused especially on young voters. I remain convinced that with a lot of hard work and focusing on their "urban" base even in so-called rural states, Democrats can flip the Senate and get rid of Trump in 2020.
3
I do understand the original intent of the two-chamber idea as attempting to prevent the "tyranny of the majority," and rural interests need to be represented and not ignored. However, we are now experiencing a tyranny of the minority in some sense, as Krugman correctly notes. To dilute this over-representation somewhat, it would make more sense for Amazon, Google and other large tech employers to stop concentrating populations of workers in already blue metro areas. I know they say that their access to an already large pool of educated workers increases the amount of innovation, but I'm sure they can find enough educated bright employees in smaller tech hubs in the Midwest or West, such as Boise, Denver, Madison, etc. Moreover, they could offer an incentive to move there to other workers from elsewhere, who might jump at the chance for a higher quality of life but still have access to culture, good food, etc., without having to deal with the nightmare of NY transit, prices, overcrowded schools, etc. This would have the benefit of (eventually) making the political makeup and proclivities of these other states more heterogeneous, and less likely to dominate Senate seats. I'd love to see this idea get more traction.
1
@Laurie W. The inequalities of Senate apportionment are internally segregating the US.
1
Every flaw in this system that is exploited by self-serving people for their own gain contributes to its eventual collapse.
Paul, there is no doubt that this was not outcome of the compromise envisioned by the founding fathers. The US Senate is unlike any other legislative body anywhere in a democracy, with no relationship to population whatsoever. Looking at all this, I feel a British style parliamentary democracy is a much better system where people have to vote once and be done. Is there any appetite in the US to do away with the Senate altogether?
1
many in the US are in favor of doing away with goverment as much as possible, spending more on the military, and drowning the rest in the bathtub. it seems they favor either a return to monarchy or anarchy, whichever requires the least effort and is cheapest.
@Sundar: The US Senate is structured as it is to protect the status of slave states in the uneasy union of slave and free states the US became at its birth.
1
Krugman has apparently failed the read the Federalist Number 62 that explains the idea behind the existence of the US Senate. Madison explains it well.
Any piece of legislation must
1. Have the support of a majority of the people (Passage in the House)
2. Have a support of a majority of the states (Passage in the Senate.)
This is exactly how the government is designed to work. It was part of the great compromise in the original Constitutional Convention. Smaller and more rural states feared that urban areas and states with higher populations would dominate the passage of all legislation. The existence of the House of Representatives and the Senate ensures that both interests have a say.
A little knowledge of history would be very good for you, Mr. Krugman.
8
@Tim Neely I'm sure Mr Krugman knows the history. But he, and I, think it causes problems now. The Constitution also allowed slavery, but we've risen above that. Krugman has already addressed your point in replies to other similar, merely conclusory, comments. Look to where it says "NYT Replies" next to "Reader Picks."
1
our system of representation was designed to make it next to impossible to eliminate slavery by giving more power to rural areas. this was plausible at a time when most Americans were farmers of one sort or another.
@Tim Neely: This is how national legislation to interfere with or abolish slavery was blocked in the uneasy union of slave and free states.
Not to blame, but rather to explain (but not too lengthily) the reasons why, I believe that when our government was constructed way back in the 1770's the most substantial difference in population between the largest and smallest state was a 6:1 ratio. Today, that largest ratio is pretty close to 80:1 (California to Wyoming). This impacts not only the Senate, but also the House (since each State must have at least one Representative and that's not always proportionately warranted). It also impacts the Electoral College.
In California, these past couple of years, a "movement" called Calexit arose. This hypothesized that California, as the 5th largest economy in the world, should be a separate country. Unfortunately, the "leadership" of this movement was, let's just say, not notable.
But if this disproportionate representation is maintained, and even grows, how long will it be before some well-known political leaders loan their credibility to such a movement? Yes, there is a lot of trickiness to California (or New York) leaving the Union, so it probably depends upon the degree of egregiousness that evolves which motivates the population. Right now, Californians not only are underrepresented by votes in the Senate, but we have a Senate Majority Leader from a State with roughly 10% of our population and 6% of our state GDP masterminding what happens with the Judiciary.
3
My Aussie partner, before the mid terms, asked me why the blue states put up with subsidising the red states even while they are subject to the tyranny of the minority. Why not leave, let the red states have their unfunded paranoid paradise? Let the Civil War finally end, with partition.
I explained that that would result in a geographically split blue nation; he thought there’d be a horse-shoe shape, but I explained about the Dakotas... instead, the blue nation would consist of the west coast, some of the southwest, the upper east coast, some of the upper Midwest, Colorado, and Hawaii (and Puerto Rico, maybe?).
That would have been totally untenable in the days of ground transport. But these days...maybe “flyover country” should be just that, another country. We’d have a two-way diaspora like India after their partition, but hopefully not so dreadfully bloody.
I’d hate to see the Grand Canyon, and all of the magnificent west, in the hands of the sagebrush rebels, though.
2
This explains the current divide between rural and urban America. Now how do we help rural America understand that it's not the scary brown people that they should be afraid of, but rather the robots and automation?
In other words, their representatives may be appealing to their fears, but are doing nothing to improve their lives or the lives of their children. Holding on to the ideal of "Senate Anerica" is a lost cause. As society moves on without them, how much longer will they continue to vote for Reps that do not have their best interests at heart?
2
To put this political inequity in terms anyone can understand, the Senate plays a large part in determining how we spend our collective pot of gold. There is huge hypocrisy among senators from low-population states in shaping a budget largely funded by under-represented high population states. As the economy continues to shift towards high population areas, the split between economic generation and political representation grows. Now think back to why our country was founded in the first place, taxation without representation, and consider the consequences.
3
@Wayne Cunningham
Then maybe people who earn more money and pay more in taxes should have more votes than poor people who pay less in taxes. I wonder how that would go over in California and New York.
1
This is really a pointless argument. The Constitution will never be altered to change the states' representation in the Senate. Mr. Krugman would better spend his time by advocating for his ideals in a way that would convince voters in those "fly over" states that it is in their self-interest to adopt them.
2
Every voter and every vote must be equal. Over 50 percent in america are women. 40 percent are minorities. The minorities are not homogeneous. Another point to consider. In states like california where the concentration of minorities is higher democrats are winning by massive landslides. Did nixon and reagan really win in california ? They cant win here today. Democrats would need to chip away in the cities, suburbs and swing states. If they get a massive majority in congress and keep the white house, aided by demographics, they can change the constitution to truly represent every american.
1
I just want to thank Paul Krugman for spending the time to respond to his critics.
2
All valid points, but racial bigotry, ignorance and blatant corruption aside, for Trump and his friends, it's much more about padding large corporations and lining deep pockets with more unequaled wealth. This implies even more abuse of power to come.
The Democrats need to get on the stick to regain the Senate in 2020 (or at least not lose further ground there), and since there's a clear void in party leadership at the moment - the Democrats don't have anyone in sight with a personality big enough to beat Trump yet - they could very well lose the gains they made in an off-year election when a presidential election is on TV.
"None of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters." Who is Krugman kidding? This attitude is not part of the problem, but is THE problem. What happened to the fair and level-headed Krugman of old? Also - good luck on getting these states to agree to change the constitution.
2
A short US History lesson:
The Apportionment Act of 1911 capped the size of the US House of Representatives at 435.
For perspective:
— In 1920, those 435 served 106 million people. 1 Rep ~ 210k people.
— In 1960, the same 435 served US 179 million people. 1 Rep ~ 412k people.
— In 2010, the same 435 served 308 million people. 1 Rep ~ 709k people.
(By the way, Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota all have fewer than 700k residents).
Want to fix politics in DC? Start by fixing the House.
@Alex
It was actually "fixed" in 1929.
@Alex
Do you think it would be better if the House had 1300 members?
The disproportionate power of Senate America has not been lost on powerful and unscrupulous people whose sole mission is to exploit thie divide for their person enrichment. Fox News heads the list of this unsavory group. But for the constant drumbeat of lies, fear mongering and conspiracy theories drowning out fact and reason, I believe Senate America and Real America might find they have more in common than they realize. The fact that Barack Obama did better in Senate America than Hillary Clinton is, I believe, evidence of this.
1
the state of Washington has a blue metro west side and Cathy McMoris rogers in the east.
the people who want to split the state in two are just like the ones in California. they want to make more Wyomings as if acres are people too
It is interesting how you attack the Republicans for weakening the institutions of democracy and then turn around and attack the oldest institution of our democracy. The founding fathers had very good reasons for dividing and diluting the power of the body politic. It is not my job to educate you as to why, but perhaps you can have lunch with a constitutional lawyer and she can explain it to you.
2
The Dems got 10,000 more Senate votes than the GOP this election.
The saddest part of this stand that Krugman makes, and the overwhelming comments from 'populous urbanites' is that it is nothing more than sour grapes and an attempt that the Dems should be 'ruling' everyone. If Dems had one their seats in all states, there would be no article, no conversation. Unbelievable!!!
4
Post-election disappointments. I hoped for better.
Paul Krugman has known the rules of our electoral system for many decades now. To raise them now smacks of opportunism or sour grapes.
He also resumes his bashing of middling America -- the basket of deplorables. The usual bicoastal sneers about "rubes who just fell off rutabaga trucks" sort of lines. They are unworthy. Indeed, they are a form of racism.
Another thing that hasn't changed since before the election is that for Krugman everything is an apocalypse. Has he ever under-reacted to anything? It gets very tiring.
3
Oh, please, rural people: Enough whining and making statements to the effect that we had better try to understand you. Or what? You'll inflict another Trump on us and yourselves? Maybe you should stop trying to make it 1950 again. Maybe you should stop voting for men who ruin your schools, demonize teachers and scoff at science. Maybe you should stop being so afraid of change and stop refusing to accept those who do not look like you as Americans. Stop acting as though the rest of the country has wronged you, somehow. Move forward, welcome change.
4
In 1800 the population of the U.S. was 5.4 million (rounding up) and sixteen percent of that population was slaves. Today, there are three-hundred and twenty million people. Maybe it is time for some tweaks,yes?
@Tim Lynch
P.S. in 1929, the House was capped at 435. The U.S. population then was 121 million.
We need to redistrict nationally.
Here's one solution: draw 100 straight lines from the geographic center of the US (a pasture 20 miles north of Belle Fourche, SD) to the outer boundary of the US, creating 100 pie-shaped senatorial districts with 1/100 of the population, recalculated periodically. Each district would include both rural and urban populations and demographic diversity. Seems fair to me.
1
Let's face it the founders were afraid of real democracy, that "mob" rule thing. 57% of this Tuesday's Senate vote went to Democrats and Dems LOST two seats. This does not play well in the minds of anyone paying attention. Read what Jefferson wrote about the "sanctity" of the constitution, and you will see that he envisioned a living, breathing, and yes, a changing document, not something written in stone, placed on a mountain top for all of us to worship from afar. He, and others of the founding generation, Madison included, believed that every generation has a moral duty to interpret the constitution according to their lights. Time to rethink the Senate and the Electoral College.
4
I haven't seen anyone point out that in the House, where the Dems did so well, they won just under 55% of the races.
In the Senate, where the Dems were beaten so badly, they won 60% of the races. And that's without counting Sanders and King. And without counting the undecided races. Not such a terrible result. They could effectively end up with over 70% wins.
This doesn't negate the thrust of the article, but I think it does put a somewhat different perspective on Tuesday's results. The Dems did not do that badly and are pretty well positioned for 2020.
2
Economically, the nation must compete on an international field. The economic strength of the nation is hampered by the misallocation of capital (federal govt welfare) that flows into rural areas that do not produce anywhere near the cost of the federal subsidies granted to them. The evidence is clear on this. The fact that the rural states continue to possess the power to grant themselves unfair federal welfare undermines the creative destruction (Joseph Schumpeter) necessary to keep our national economy strong. The states that produce the majority of the national GDP should be entitled to a fair and proportional slice of the national political power. California's GDP makes up 12% of the US GDP. It is larger than Canada. North Dakota makes up 0.2% of US GDP.
1
Surely it's time to create a new Senate structure by means of a Constitutional Amendment. Amendment XVII changed the system a hundred years ago, mandating that all senators be elected by popular vote, rather than appointed by state governors.
We should now alter the balance of the Senate by some sort of population guage. For example, let each state be guaranteed one Senator no matter how many people live there; but allot two or three Senators to each state with populations that pass higher figures. This is not a terribly radical change, and would maintain the concept of balanced power desired by the framers. But it would be a lot fairer and more democratic!
1
A fascinating problem: how to empower people who live in rural areas of the country who themselves are a minority, and yet keep this minority from oppressing their own "minorities" while hiding behind state's rights? And secondly should sparsely populated regions of the country continue to be able to outpunch the more populated states? The solution might be as simple as encouraging greater population growth in sparsely populated regions. Assuming that sparsely populated states have the infrastructure, especially access to affordable food and water, needed to manage larger populations, I can imagine a few clever economists coming up with a plan to encourage migration from overly populated urban centers. 40 acres and a pick up truck, anyone. Alternatively the powers of the Senate need some tinkering, I suspect.
1
I remember reading an article decades ago during the Asian economic slump that Japan was politically unable to adopt policies to address the crisis because a very small rural population dominated politics and were severely conservative. I believe the solution was to wait for this population to die off, wait for most of it to move to the cities, and then become so small/marginalized that it’s political advantages no longer counted. Decades of slump resulted. Shall we adopt the same solution?
1
Dr. Krugman's points are well taken. I would however point out that there is a growing diversification of even smaller urban areas, less than 150k population. I think of sioux falls, SD where my NY-born and bred daughter lives. When I recently visited her, i noticed many ethnic and cultural minorities intermingling, if not intentionally at least, for purposes of commerce. I would conjecture that in 1 or 2 more generations the US will represent a true melting pot, albeit containing an un-homogenized goulash.
America is a republic, not a democracy. The cornerstones of the constitution: "Checks and Balances", "3 Branches of Government", "Bicameral Legislature" are working as intended - they diffuse power and make it much harder for a dictatorship (explicit or implicit) to take hold. Mr. Krugman should consider how proposed changes could be misused and produce unintended results
5
In the 1790 census DE had 59,094 people while VA had 747,610 or 12.65:1 for the two Senate seats. Since they 'corrected' for slaves, that amounts to 55,539 vs 630,559 for the House or 11.35:1. That compares with today's 70:1 ratio between CA and Wy. In 1868 we ratified the 14th Amendment and in Wesberry v. Sanders SCOTUS applied this amendment's 'Equal Justice standard to congressional districts. The 'Great Compromise' which guaranteed "equal suffrage in the Senate" to each state is the original gerrymander.
2
Well Paul, the "framers" of the Constitution were concerned that the small states (like New Hampshire!) would have little political power in relation to the large states (like Virginia!, in 1787). So now what do we have? It's just the opposite! The small states have disproportionate politcal power over the large states. The only real solution is for the populations in "rural" states to change politically.
Be careful, Prof. Krugman -- when speaking of "stuffing the courts with right-wing loyalists." That's the FEDERAL courts, which are very important cauldrons of legal change-or-not-change. However they are not THE courts, as most judicial decisions -- and the case law that proceeds out of them -- are made at the state level.
Let's keep these things straight. Times are scary enough without making little mistakes that lead people to feel the walls closing in more than they already are.
2
Everybody knows there is no respectable rationale whatsoever for the distorted apportionment of the US Senate, in view of its crucial national and international duties to vet federal executive and judicial appointees, and treaty commitments with other nations. It is the biggest log in the eye of this travesty of democracy.
3
Maybe we just have Soros pay 100k each to 300,000 people who pledge to vote Democratic to move to Wyoming and Idaho (150,000 to each state). Senate flipped in a few years. Job done.
Sure, it's $30 billion, so he might need a bit of crowdfunding. I'd be happy to put something in the kitty.
3
Bravo!
There is also the phenomenon of the ex-rural state.
As New Hampshire has evolved from a rural state to one with a significant high education population along the Seacoast and in the university towns, the state has shifted from deep red to a patchwork of blue and red. We now have an entire Congressional delegation of Democrats (75% female) and the state legislature just flipped Blue.
But we still have those areas outside the metro area which are "Alabama in between." So we have a Trump wannabe for Governor.
Good article, thanks for this.
In accord with how an ideal Senate should function, senators should not be partisan at all. Same for the AG offices. Your country's last Supreme Court appointment is an unfortunate example of a minority of the country's people having more weight in the selection process. Such an important decision should reflect the values of the majority of people.
1
It's even more infuriating when you consider that that highly blue states also subsidize the red states in terms of distribution of tax revenues.
In this age of internet-based remote work, I have a fantasy that a large number of folks seeking to escape the high cost of many blue states will create new communities in a low-population red state and turn them blue. It might be easier to redistribute the population than amend the constitution...
4
" ...if a Court appointed by a minority president and a minority Senate defies the obvious will of the people, the case for action will be much stronger. "
What sort of action?
2
I'm more optimistic about the Democratic party's chances in 2020 after the midterms and here is why:
Key races in several south/rural house districts might be a canary in the coal mine for Republicans. Iowa 01 and Iowa 03 flipped, likely due to the Trade War's impact on agriculture. New Mexico 02 and Arizona 02, likely because people at the border don't actually believe the fear mongering that Trump is trying to sell in places far from the border. Perhaps Oklahoma 05, South Carolina 01, Georgia 06, Texas 07 and 32, traditional urban Republican strongholds in the deep south are becoming less socially conservative? Let's see how Republicans fare in 2020 in other tightly contested districts in high local tax states like California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, who haven't yet experienced a full year of the 2017 Republican passed middle class tax hike (let's call it what it really is).
The point is, people eventually realize when they're voting against they're own self interests and that's what voting for the Republican Party is. It may be all the rage now to support rage politics, but that will eventually grow old in rural areas. They will soon start to see no improvements to their lives under the Republican Party, and they will feel even more disenfranchised than before. And that is truly sad because they are indeed being left behind and need to be represented, but in a constructive and solutions-based way, not whatever is being peddled to them now.
3
I have written in these comment sections for the last few moths for the nation to rethink Statehood. Why are we still honoring an act done at the founding and maybe when each of the first couple of dozen States joined the Union to continue? This imbalance of power diminishes the people living in more populous states.
In my opinion, we should consolidate contiguous States to make up a reasonable sized population using some acceptable norms or give more Senators to larger States. This is only fair.
@Gary Valan
I agree, Gary. Why should Wyoming votes count 69 times more than CA votes in Senate business that affects us all equally? Each senator should represent 1/100th of the population, recalculated periodically. There are various ways to accomplish this. Let's keep pressing this point to gradually foster a political will to address this fundamental flaw in our democracy.
1
@Alex...I agree, too. Why should Delaware and Vermont Senate votes count more than California's? Hawaii, Rhode Island and New Hampshire are half as bad. But, really, just get rid of the Senate. We don't need two Houses, which is what your proposal amounts to.
It all means the only proposals that get signed into law will be ones that get very broad appeal in this very divided country. That's fine with me as someone who dislikes the ideological fringe of any side as well as unchecked overreach.
1
The modern presumption that the electoral college was meant to right the balance of smaller states against more populous ones is a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a revision, of our history. It was proposed as a compromise by Madison and others slave state politicians because, though Virginia, e.g., was the most populous state, its slaves could not vote. Hence, our founders in slave states felt they would be under a permanent electoral disadvantage in any popular vote system. The electoral college is a remnant of slavery having nothing at all to do with smaller versus larger states.
2
@Peter Thom Completely incorrect. The founders were opposed to a popular vote system because they wanted to filter the passions of the mob, which had plagued direct Democracies as far back as classical Athens. You will recall that senators were also not elected by popular vote either.
6
@Peter Thom...It's odd how the Electoral College worked just fine in 1932-48, 1960-64, 1976, 1992-96 and 2008-12. Hmmm. What gives?
At some point, someone needs to recognize that the United States, or almost any country, is a pretty arbitrary construct. The Constitution created a foundational framework for allowing a young country to survive and thrive over the course of 200+ years. But, it's failing way too many Americans today. If you elect people who put country over party or over personal gain, smaller states will not be neglected. I would say the house, absent gerrymandering by either party and with a broader voting base, could be the balancing body for the country. The Senate has way to much unevenly distributed power.
Instead of just talking about 'Senate America,' how about also discussing 'House of Representatives' America??? After all, California hasn't added any Representatives since 1911, even though their population is now 40 million people. Yet the House if supposedly based on population. So he's right that California is less democratic than ever. The answer, though, isn't reducing representation for rural America. It's adding representation for Californians in the House. It seems like Krugman believes that says California is now very undemocratic, Wyoming should be too? Why not just quadruple the size of Representatives in the House? Problem solved. Oh wait. The Democrats would lose control in a House with 1500 plus members, so they won't do it. They'd rather just abolish the Electoral College and turn national elections into a giant plebiscite for the Democratic Party, disenfranchising millions of square miles of rural America, and millions of voters.
2
one mile, one vote - is that the principle?
Here’s how bad it is: Before the recent elections, I did some counting. Twelve states had one senator from each party. No problem there.
Twenty states, with a population of about 84 million, had two Republican senators.
The remaining 18 states, with a total population of more than 140 million, had two Democratic senators.
Yes, regional concerns must be heard by the federal government. But this state of affairs is approaching tyranny of the minority.
2
I swear it. Before I read your column, Paul, I read David Brooks'. I offer it here as a possible solution to the dire problem you described so well. Here it is.
One of the measures that needs attention is renewal of rural America. That is where so many of the "left behinds" live. Rural American small towns of 5,000 to 10,000 population, not well connected to the interstate highway system, and bereft of the industries that supported them is where cultural resentment has grown and thrived.
Add in globalization and a new digital economy and you have "knowledge workers" clustering in major metros where a resulting centrifugal force further drains the population of rural communities. America has too many towns that are too small to grow and to large to die.
A "Marshall Plan" for rural communities is needed. It would mean infrastructure improvements that would better connect small towns to the interstate system; thus improving their attractiveness to expanding businesses and industries. Economic incentives that would reward people for moving to small towns is another effort that could be tried.
The "two Americas" described by presidential candidate John Edwards back in 2004 still needs an intervention by the public and private sectors. It won't be easy or cheap; but, failure to do so will surely leave us a culturally and economically bifurcated nation with its democracy at great peril.
6
What needs to happen is for the less populated states to become more populated with progressives. What if progressive parents encouraged their high school aged kids to apply to colleges in Wyoming or Idaho or North or South Dakota? What if they registered to vote there instead of submitting absentee ballots from their home states? What if billionaire business owners like Jeff Bezos looked to those same states to build his "HQ2"? Sure, he'd have to spend some of his billions of infrastructure improvements but 50,000 new jobs in Wyoming, many going to young and more progressive people than those already there could change the electoral outcome. (and spare Queens the traffic nightmare that will result if he builds there)
2
To me, the basic question is this: Are we the United States? Of are we America? These two things are very different. Over 200 years ago, the Founders based this country on the United States. If we want to change to be America and get rid of the concept of states, that's fine, but please say it plainly rather than hiding behind the arguments.
Repeat: "United States" and "America" are two very different things.
2
To me, the logic is clear: the judiciary should be representative of all the people, or it is simply an illegitimate imposition of judgment, and takings - taxes, monies, properties, liberties - from unrepresented citizens by a small minority for its own benefit.
Democrats, perhaps rightly, fear a constitutional convention because, as my representative acknowledged, "the risks are too great." Yet unless the various constitutional anachronisms--territorial rather than democratic senate representation and the electoral college, most obviously-- are rectified, the system will remain unjust and Democrats will always be running uphill, electorally. The fixes are technically easy, but politically difficult. This column is a valuable contribution to beginning reform. If the inequities are not corrected, American democracy cannot hold.
1
I agree with Krugman's point about how our political system is structured in a way that gives more power to voters in rural areas and smaller states. The electoral college elected Trump, not the majority of voters.
However, I have a neighbor--college-educated, financially secure white middle aged guy from rural Alabama--who has helped me understand the mindset of Trump supporters. I do not suggest that this justifies our lack of true representative government, but my neighbor believes that the dominant culture--including the NY Times, all mainstream media, and Hollywood--totally disrespects rural people and their values. To my neighbor, that dominance is balanced somewhat by the Senate and electoral college. I point this out because it makes Krugman's argument very difficult to communicate to Trump supporters, who are quick to dismiss these views as more fake new (or fake views). Thus a real conundrum.
3
@Larry Chamblin
I spent 35 years of my life in the wonderful state of Alabama, but I still don't understand the mindset of Trump voters. The supposed disrespect for rural people is a myth fostered by the far right to perpetuate their unfair advantage. Disrespect for people who lack education or tolerance or willingness to contribute to society is as common in cities as anywhere else. This has nothing to do with geography or regional identity.
1
@Larry Chamblin What is your neighbors trusted new source? Could it be Fox News?
Brian Buetler from Crooked Media proposes that Congress open an investigation into the effects of propaganda in the media. It is impossible to find common ground when half the country is being brain washed.
You might want to point out to your friend that the only people who use the term ‘flyover country’ are Republicans imitating their own peculiar version of Democrats (and one or two country music singers). If we do look down on our fellow citizens, it’s only because they support a lying con man who seems hell bent on destroying our nation for his own profit.
1
The problem we have is that while the House represents people accurately, both POTUS and the Senate do not represent voters equally. This automatically creates a two-thirds majority for the minority.
The simplest fix is to eradicate the Electoral College. This allows for the majority of voters to decide two thirds of our government rather than one third.
2
If we had a technocratic centrally-controlled government (a bit like China, with, admittedly, all the accompanying downsides that come with it), there might be a vision to correct the problem by fostering development of new urban centers with plenty of jobs in the increasingly hollowed-out heartland. If, for example, Washington could force Wyoming or West Virginia to develop into something more economically like Silicon Valley or even Pittsburgh, the composition of the Senate would change as well. The problem ultimately is that our system of government seems not to allow an informed forward-looking vision (of any kind) to exert any influence on the direction the country takes.
Why is it always that us "city folks" have to appease the rural folks, but never the other way around!?
5
How about three Senators from each state, no two from the same party? Just a thought.
We need to bring back earmarks.
I for one am tired of 'real Americans' who shrug when it is painfully clear that the president is lying.
3
I think I agree with David Leonhardt, that Democrats would do better to include the needs and concerns of rural Americans, rather than try to load the Senate with extra representation for cities and suburbs. It would not be good for the country to be run by Californians, East Coasters, and a few mid-western population centers. Obamacare was a swing issue that favored the Dems in a lot of rural areas, and we can find other issues that benefit ALL Americans, rather than just urbanites.
Rural people are doing us all a service by NOT moving to the cities, and instead preserving a way of life that is more in touch with our agrarian past, and the virtues (as well as some of the defects) of those who wrote the Constitution and created our nation. Those people were, in our terms, racists, religious bigots, and intolerant of many things and people that we accept today, yet they also had a lot of strength and humanity that we could use. I grieve that the Senate will, at least for the next two years, support our president's photo-fascist agenda, but as a greater president once said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In time they'll see what a phony crook he is, and they'll turn on him.
1
@Robert Crosman I was just reminded by Richard Wolff's "Economic Update" radio program on KPFA, that the "Rust Belt," where Trump did well among blue collar voters, was very responsive to Bernie Sanders' democratic socialist message and candidacy. The Dems can and should be running on messages like Bernie's, and with candidates who share his vision and his values.
Don't forget to add Fox news to toxic brew that has caused this deep division in the country. It's not Fox news, it's Fox propaganda.
1
Paul, New York City is not the real America.
6
I think you missed the point. You might not agree with the views of everyone in NYC, but they are as valuable an American as anyone in a rural community.
1
"......blatant corruption and abuse of power....."
Naive, but how can this be in 2018?
" .......blatant corruption and abuse of power....... ?
This is stuff from the Middle Ages, Tammany Hall, the dictatorships of Europe, but America? What is wrong with us? Have we become so accustomed to lies that we accept them as a matter of course?
Rhetorical questions for a "Christian" nation.
We are all Americans but "we" are not all "white" and soon enough even those of us who are of the "proper" skin color will understand the only color that counts in our nation is green.
We should wait for the fat lady to sing before start getting all huffy about Senate election results. If all 3 outstanding elections end up going in favor of Democrats, we could end up with a 51/49 split. That would be extraordinary given this year's circumstances and render Mr. Krugman's arguments moot.
The gerrymandering and electoral college must END. One person, one vote...PERIOD.
2
yes, the electoral college needs to be fixed. but if it's totally eliminated then, in reality, only new york, Texas and California will matter. that's even more unfair to the majority of the US than the current system.
1
Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota and Nebraska should be combined into one state called "Buffalolandia", with two senators and one Governor.
3
All very correct. There is one more element missing the first past the post electoral system, that here as in the UK is stacked against urban areas where the vote is homogeneously left of center. This is exacerbated by gerrymanders, but would be a problem even without them.
Thus we need proportional representation, that would also give a chance to new parties that we need. What you implicitly call for is a constitutional amendment regarding the Senate that would be difficult given the implicit eternity clause of Art V. In fact pr would much more easy to establish. But ultimately we need both.
Andrew Arato
New School
When I read of the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, I think of Paul Krugman's recent defense of empire. That's what empire looks like.
2
I've given this matter some thought about the divide between urban Democrats and rural Republicans in North Carolina's senate. My solution? Consolidate a lot of the state's underpopulated counties, which would reduce GOP representation in Raleigh. For the US, we could have Wymontaho, Utadazona, Okanbraskotawa.
Explain rural Vermont, pop 530,000? Bernie country. Love rural Vermont!
One of our former Prime Ministers in Australia, Paul Keating, called our senators (similar to the US with the same number elected from each state regardless of population) "unrepresentative swill".
1
as a california voter this means my vote is about 3/5ths of a vote. 3/5ths, where have i heard that number before in counting humans? hmmmm
2
Mr. Krugman maintains a touching belief in democracy and justice to prevail in US politics. Get over it.
4
This time the NYT got it right. I must thank you for predicting the Dems' retaking the House. I have to thank all the NYT journalists for holding their own. I have to thank also Bob Woodward for his tell-all book "Fear", instrumental in chronicling what is really happening within the walls of the White House - and its madness. A baby-steps Blue Wave despite millions of dollars spent by the GOP to intimidate the Country with racist ads; despite GOP's promoting and seeking the help of white supremacists; despite Trump fanatics threatening to bombs Dems and killing Jews and innocent young people having a night out.
1
it's no surprise given the states like South Dakota stupidly has as many senators as California or New York clearly the populace is not and has not been represented equally for a long time.
It will work itself out. Beto almost won Texas. If Texas goes Blue then it will be the Republicans who are complaining.
The only thing that may save us is that the less-educated states will entirely depopulate due to stupidity and guns.
The most shocking fact in this piece today is 600K voters in Wyoming vs. 40M voters in California, both having equal weight in the Senate. INSANE.
2
That is already happening though and it's precisely the problem. There could be 10 people left living in Wyoming but 2 of them would still be in the Senate.
1
@Fish I said entirely. Once Wyoming is completely empty we can de-state it, remove it from the map, and make it part of Colorado. DONE.
1
I am an ex-pat New Yorker who fled New York to join the Army at the age of nineteen, who served a full career in the Army (four tours in Iraq) and who, upon retiring from the Army, kept fleeing from New York to where I happily live now: in a log cabin on the Montana prairie at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. I homestead out here, ten miles beyond where the blacktop road ends, with my horse and my cat. I see large numbers of cows, deer, and antelope every day but I can go for weeks without seeing a human. Looking out my windows, I see snow-capped purple mountain majesties, not skyscrapers, and endless miles of rolling prairie teeming with wildlife, not parking lots. Both my body and my soul are able to breathe out here. I have learned this: Krugman has it horribly and insultingly backwards with what he calls “Real America.” I know that Real America consists of farmers, ranchers, cowboys, loggers, miners, and village shopkeepers; it consists of the classically American Frontier value system of rugged individualism and extreme self-reliance these people embody. Corporate lawyers, stock brokers, effete, snobbish intellectual college professors who understand nothing about the Common Man, and seething sardine-packed hordes of countless non-assimilating demographic groups who populate our huge cities are False America. In order to preserve Real America from the onslaught of False America, we must maintain the Senate and the Electoral College as they are.
5
Nope all is definitely not lost. FL, GA and TX are very urbanized. Half of all GA voters live in and around Atlanta and the election showed they have all the power and are not like the rest of GA. The Senate will come around. Bill Nelson still might win in FL, which is basically a giant suburb with a small farm out back. It too will swing blue. The big prize is TX and Beto showed that it is gettable. About half of its population live in Dallas Ft. Worth metro and Houston metro. Both FL and TX have huge non-white populations. No Dems need to work harder and smarter and the Senate can be theirs too.
Krugman manages to be elitist and ethnocentric in the same column, and woefully clueless about the purpose of the U.S. Senate as it was designed. His message is clear -- highly educated people in cities: Good. Non-college types in the countryside: Bad. Then he lumps them all together as a mob of wild-eyed racists. It would be easy to understand this simplistic stereotyping from the poorly educated, but from a man of Mr. Krugman's highly educated background: Disappointing.
4
The worst scenario would be if the liberal elites who populate the coasts of our country had complete control over the more sensible and wiser folks who live in the middle. The number of pampered identity groups would explode and political correctness would rule, making free speech impossible.
2
@Aaron Adams
Excuse me? "Saner and wiser," yet you guys are all for destroying the environment, white nationalism, stealing women's rights and depriving the LGBT community of their rights?
Ditto racism, voter suppression, xenophobia, panicking because of a few poor people seeking asylum while ignoring the mass murders committed almost daily by regular Americans because we must love our guns?
That is neither wise nor sane.
Trump and the Republican Senate has no message except anger and fear. White, rural men (kids call then F-150s) see the world changing, they don't like it, and they want a strong man to make it like it was. Trump lies to them and tells them it can go back to the way it was. That's it. There is nothing else.
1
OK, I've got an idea, fellow Californians: We pass the hat among all 40 million of us and go shopping. Pick up a Dakota or two just for the senate seats....
Why don't Krugman and other leftists just come out and say it-they don't like the constitution and the idea of a federal republic and want direct democracy (since they think they have the majority)? Real America? This is the arrogance that comes when you think you have a monopoly on both morality and ideas and that your inferiors keep getting in the way.
3
Maybe smart well educated people will start gravitating to places where it doesn't cost three times as much to rent or make it impossible to buy a house or have any savings. As time goes on in these great liberal fortresses might thru liberal mismanagement of the criminal justice system become to frightening to live in. That's a hard call if police state tactics like in NYC are adapted and the idea free narcotic dispensaries take hold. Who's going to complain about living in the gutter when opiates and cocaine are free? Or commit crimes. But if you look at the homeless San Fran and Seattle you see what I mean.
Cities in more conservative areas are becoming magnets for as you call them "Real" people and I'm sure they'll try to reshape things in their image. As Ben Frankin said our Republic takes work if it's to survive.
I gotta say some people are unconscious rascist. Maybe I'm being a snowflake but to say someone is "Real" mean the "other" isn't. Impling they are less than human or even sub human. These things have a way of behaving like cancers but it might be just me.
1
The problem is more than political. It is cultural, social and psychological. Rural and urban dwellers are not just different kinds of voters: they are different kinds of people. The confrontation between country and city is old: the story of the country mouse and city mouse goes back to Ancient Greece. But now, with increased geographical mobility, the two kinds of people have sorted themselves out. City people are open-minded, eager for new sensations, dynamic and entrepreneurial. Rural people...well. Just think fo the differences in education levels, rates of obesity, fondness for guns, religiosity and all the other indicators of closed-mindedness. Where are they higher: metropolitan or rural areas? My husband was born in rural Iowa, escaped as soon as he could, and now sees his cousins who have stayed in the same small town their entire lives as a different species. I was born in a big city, have lived in cities all over the world my entire life, and regard small-town America as a fair approximation of hell. So why should we, city mice, be ruled by country mice who are so different from us on the basic psychological level?
Who decided real America is mainly metropolitan? Where are the farms and factories and dairies and livestock yards in Manhattan or LA or DC? Thank God the Constitution created two bodies in the House and Senate.
2
They can always restore the High Line to run trains, build stockyards at 14th Street, turn Central Park into a military base and farm the plains of Brooklyn. The hipsters already wear the flannel shirts and boots so there’s a ready and willing workforce isn’t there.
1
We already have a legislative body based on population. It's called the House of Representatives.
2
Well, what unites Senate America is a racist and irrational fear of cultural extinction. They view the demographic changes happening across the white developed world as a devolutionary process that will result in the displacement of white culture. They like Trump because they fervently believe he will deliver them from this fate.
Ironically, this unwavering admiration is for someone who is merely using them for his own pursuits and self aggrandizement. Some are starting to get it ....
1
I have this vision of the Senate as the last bastion of white supremacy, surrounded by the rest of us. While the power of the Senate is huge, they can’t hold out forever against destiny. They are on the losing side, just like President Snow in “Hunger Games.”
1
It’s Red States vs. Blue states, OR mostly the Confederacy vs. the Union. Old vs. New, Religion vs. Science, Racism vs. Equality, Misogyny vs. independence, spite vs. the common good. LET them Secede, this time, for GOOD. Without welfare from the Federal Government i.e. Taxpayers, most of these States would quickly devolve into third word conditions. Let the great sorting begin. I’ll retire early, and move to Seattle. Very large House and yard: FOR SALE. Cheap. CASH only.
2
So now we need affirmative action for victimized Democrats. Manhattan (read Wall Street) has already reduced farmers to beggar status, and now Krugman wants to deprive them of their last scrap of dignity: their vote. Some on the Left are calling for dialogue with their American brethren of Heartland. Not Krugman. Even to talk with this ilk is to grant them legitimacy. He disdains to live in the same country with them. What a
wonderful world this would be if finally, at long last, we were able to choose our neighbors according to our kind--in Krugman's case European coffee house sophists. If only he could un-halve the Left Coasts, and with then join the Eu, the UN presiding, and l
2
I don't understand why we refer to them as Republicans? Should we not refer to them as the White Nationalist Party? The moderate Republicans have been excommunicated from leadership. These people are White Nationalists and should be labeled correctly.
1
Let us remember that people in small states and people in big states all benefit from: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, the Affordable Care Act (with all of its flaws/concessions to the health care and insurance businesses). All of us, everywhere, benefit from having public education available and affordable. The national systems of transportation and electricity distribution benefit all. The food produced in Iowa, gets eaten by folks in New York, California, Iowa and Wyoming, so everyone benefits from safe food distributed in many places. The military industrial complex is present in all 50 states. The atmosphere affects all 50 states, and fresh water supplies touch many states. The list goes on . . . Anyone who campaigns on maintaining and improving all of that should win every time, anywhere. As is often said, more unites us than divides us. To paraphrase Elvis, "A lot less ignorance, fear, and hate; and a lot more action to teach, instill courage, and love one another" would save the Republic.
We live in a representative democracy. This column reads like the Port Huron Statement (2nd draft per Jeff Lebowski).
Mr. Krugman's responses to critiques of this column demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the Constitution, it's well thought out development, and its necessity to create checks and balances throughout that document. If we give up the Senate, which provides a greater voice to the minority and checks against majority rule, then we might as well dismantle other government solutions that do likewise (e.g., AA/EEO).
Best for Mr. Krugman to discuss economic matters rather than constitutional law.
1
Having lived in several versions of small town and rural America over the last 70+ years, I haven't seen any evidence that either party cares much what happens there. Both have favored policies that benefit urban places to the detriment of farms and small towns. Republican rhetoric suggests concern but delivers nothing I can see other than a message is that it is ok to be white. Many in crumbling rural America grasp this frail reed without noticing policies still don't change.
Of course we would not have been able to form a Union of States in the first place if this provision of equal representation fin the Senate for each State had not been included. Less populated Colonies would never have ceded their sovereignty to more populated Colonies with vastly different economic drivers and cultures. But more importantly, why would todays more rural States ever agree to allowing out of touch (at least out of touch with the reality in rural America) voters in coastal cities to dominate their lives. They won't, we have to work with the system we have today, it is more than adequate to meet our challenges.
2
I think we can live with our present Constitution but only if we abolish the electoral college and replace the existing Senate with one representing people not meaningless stretches of empty land.
But how? The Senate itself stands in the way. Perhaps We the People may have to just throw out the old one
and write ourselves a brand new Constitution.
@archer717
That power--"throw out and write ..a new Constitution" is exactly what the 10th Amendment is all about. "..reserved to the People." -- The sovereignty of the People to Ordain and Establish their government. In fact, the Constitution was ratified by simple majority vote in Assemblies of the People in each former colony or territory.
Dr. Krugman -- here's something I would like your opinion on. I know some people are saying statehood for Puerto Rico and DC are an answer, and while that would help some, fundamentally it does not solve the problem. In state senates we do not vote by county, which is similar to voting by states. Instead, we vote by election districts. Perhaps the national solution is the same as the state solution: vote by district. Why does the senate have to represent states? State legislatures once elected Senators, but have not in a 100 years, so that is an anachronism, Senators represent people now. Why not 100 national senate districts? Progressives are afraid of a constitutional convention, but maybe they need to embrace that solution.
1
Thank you Mr. Krugman. Excellent clear-eyed analysis, as usual.
We could improve this unjust Senate situation by adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico (both chock full of Americans deserving of representation) as the 51st and 52nd states.
2
As others below have noted, our constitution was drafted by a group of delegates, from several states, and ratified by thirteen other groups of delegates -- ratifying conventions in the states. All of them were thinking primarily of the rights of their respective states, and one -- Rhode Island -- was so protective of those rights that it refused even to send delegates to the Philadelphia convention. Which means that our system was born wholly out of the idea of representation, not simple popularity. It's not an accident that the name of the nation is the United States of America, not the United People of America. Prof. Krugman is surely correct that this system cannot work if it means that a small minority rules the nation and cancels progress and modernization, not to mention decency and justice. But the Senate cannot enact laws on its own, nor appropriate money on its own. The misuse of the confirmation power is ominous, and can do much damage. But the House cannot be pushed out of the way. Laws cannot be enacted or repealed without it. And there is still a large number of tenured federal judges willing to line against lawlessness. Let's not despair, just yet.
1
Fred from Bayside is correct. The Senate was not intended as a representative body; that's why the House is called the House of Representatives. The Senate was also not a counterweight to factionalism per se. It was intended to be a deliberative body, that would consider the interests of the nation as a whole. It was, in fact, intended as a counterweight to democracy, i.e., to rule by the majority. The founders' great concern was that in a nation ruled by the people, the majority could and would oppress the minority. The Senate is intended to fulfill that function.
4
A possible solution to this could for many concerned citizens to move to these rural states at least to retire and make the political population more representative. An economic sacrifice for gain in democratic legitimacy.
Also, it will be better to have a map of the country proportional to population and not to area. Many citizen get confused between acreage and population.
1
among the more important consequences of the "inequality of power" built into article one's (of the constitution) provision of two senators for each state, regardless of population, is the "tilting" of the federal judiciary, compared to the views of the majority of our population.
the senate has been given the power of "confirmation", including especially confirmation of federal justices and judges. republicans have chosen to use that power in a "litmus testing" fashion, unlike the democrats. what that means is that republicans have used their opportunities to appoint right wing ideologues to the federal bench to great effect.
and the press for the most part doesn't appreciate that result, continuing to report justices or judges as "liberal" whenever they have been appointed by a democratic president. the reality is that no current justice is "liberal", measured by the views of the general population: they range from moderate to conservative to ideologically conservative.
are there any possible solutions? aside from a constitutional amendment broadly modifying the power of the senate (turning it into a "house of lords), there is one short-term, partial solution: granting statehood to the district of columbia and puerto rico, at the first opportunity, hopefully soon after the 2020 election.
doing so, at least, will create four new senators to be elected from a more "liberal" leaning electorate, better balancing the political makeup of the senate.
Dr. Krugman is correct--that our democracy favors the minority of white citizens spread out in rural areas to the disadvantage of the diversified majority concentrated in urban areas. Initially when our constitution was written the states with small populations did not want to be overwhelmed by the heavily populated states and so this compromise was accepted--- representation equal for all states in the Senate and based on population in the House. But what might have seemed fair in our early history seems unfair today. Now the electoral power of the few is greater than that of the many ; the minority can elect the president and the Senate (and with gerrymandering, even the House ). A massive city cannot allow a few to make all the important decisions for the whole city, whereas a small town of a few hundred could. The smaller the population the more acceptable increasing governmental power of the few. Today the smaller states unfairly can tilt the Electoral College in their favor, and tilt the Senate in their favor---and consequently pick the Supreme Court (for the House plays no role here.) Without constitutional amendment, this lack of full democracy will persist. Tweaking the Electoral College via amendment requiring majority vote plus electoral vote to prevent a run-off election and also giving the House a role in confirming Justices would help---albeit such change seems unlikely. So that now all three branches seem rigidly under Trump's domination.
2
This is a particularly odd election to write this column. There were 35 Senate seats up for grabs. With 58% of the non-existent popular Senate vote, Democrats will capture 24 seats (assuming Florida and Mississippi break for R and Arizona breaks D). That's 69% of the available seats with 58% of the votes. I look forward to tomorrow's column recommending that Democrats give 4 additional seats to Republicans to rectify this injustice.
2
At some point we will need to address the fundamental problem of the Connecticut Compromise. When the Constitution was ratified Delaware had one tenth the population of Virginia and Pennsylvania. Now Wyoming has about 1.5 percent of the population of California. In fact you would need to combine Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Nebraska to have a state with an average population. That disparity is just going to keep growing.
1
With all the inefficiency and frustration, democracy is the only form of government with a self-correcting mechanism built in. But self-correction requires a representative government, laws that apply to everyone and the ability to reduce corruption.
As soon as some groups of people exploit unintended loopholes to get advantages others don’t have, they start trying to weaken our ability to self-correct. Without that, we’re not a democracy any more.
1
The fact is that the states themselves were "gerrymandered" on admission. The congresses "admitting" the new states understood perfectly well that they would always have low populations, but would have two senators each and guarantee a permanent bias in favor of rural voters who tend to be "conservative."
A nail-on-the-head summary of the current and long-term problem with our tripartite Republic. Giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC would temporarily alleviate the problem, but getting that through in the current setup is unlikely, just as redrawing state boundaries is unlikely. The Dems only need a few more Senators. Can they add something to their bag of tricks that would appeal to farmers? I'll bet that's possible.
1
Our constitution has a per-existing condition that will not be easily excised. Eliminating the Electoral College would be the simplest to implement and yet that would only deal with the election of the President. It would be a start, and yet even that seems to be a Herculean task.
Does anyone really believe that a Constitutional convention is even possible during our polarizing times? Does anyone really believe that the status quo has the chance of lasting another hundred years? Where does that leave us but with the "Pakistanization" of the country and the violence that goes along with it, or will global warming do us the favor of making it all moot! An existential crisis may be the only way to get us to move off the dime. As dire as the professors thoughts are, they may be considered optimistic.
The fear is that 70% of Americans will soon be represented by 30% of the Senators & 30% of Americans will be represented by 70% of the senators.
This is a big can or worms that will have to be worked out in time, but perhaps there is an interim practical step that can be worked out in a shorter amount of time.
Allow a 70% majority in the house to over ride a senate vote.
There are a variety of ways to deal with this but that’s one way to begin to think about the issues.
In 1787 the states were seen as virtual countries, (ergo they were called states). This made more sense in a world where communications was very, very, very slow (it took a week to go from Boston to New York - and many counties were designed to be a horse ride’s distance for the residents).
Today is nothing like 1787. Not only is communication instantaneous, but movement is rapid - you can go from Hawaii to New York in a matter of hours. And suburban Georgia looks a lot like Suburban New England, MidWest, Texas, Colorado, Washington & California. (Only a few places in America are really unique, like New Orleans and Hawaii). The cry for states rights is archaic to the point of almost being quixotic.
There are lessons Ike this lying about in different places. France has gone through something similar. It provinces were broken up into departments administered in a unitary centralized system. Every so often England has had to redraw their parliamentary maps as some places emptied out and others filled up.
1
Paul, I agree (as I often do), with every word you wrote... But instead of suggesting change or a lack of legitimacy, why aren't we instead focused on why Democrats didn't win within the structure that has existed since the founding of the Republic? Instead of changing the Senate, which will never happen (since it would require the consent of each state that would lose Senate representation - look it up), we should be (a) developing a message that does resonate with the residents of small states and (b) questioning the checkers being played by Democratic Senate leadership against the chess being played by McConnell.
We all knew the challenges faced by Democrats with the Senate map, and Schumer decided to make the election about an issue (Kavanaugh) that absolutely did not have traction in the smaller states. First, he gave away the filibuster for a status quote nomination (Gorsuch). Then, when fighting a transformational nomination (Kavanaugh) without the leverage he had squandered, he forced three red state senators to take votes that cost them their seats (while Manchin won re-election). Check. Mate. Why isn't he taking more heat for this? Perhaps having a metropolitan leader of a major party in that body isn't the best idea?
Bottom line, Democrats can win within the existing system (and, frankly, could have won on Tuesday), but they need to develop a message beyond #Resist / #AbolishICE / #MeToo and connect with our fellow Americans who live in those states.
Because of the senate and the president we also have a supreme court that is not representative of the people. If Trump gets more picks that will be even more true, and even if the Democrats take back the presidency the court will hold sway for decades, out of sync but not out of power with the people of this country.
@inko
The Democrats should have run a decent candidate in 2016, instead of the corrupt liar who was so awful a candidate that she could not even win the states that Obama won. Then Democrats could have appointed two liberal Justices. Didn't Obama tell us that elections have consequences?
I think it's difficult for coastal urban dwellers to understand the mindset of those who live in the block of red states that stretch from North Dakota to Texas. I grew up in western Iowa, which is just as red, and have traveled extensively in these states. The thing most of them have in common is economies driven largely by agriculture. Farmers and ranchers are generally insulated from the hurly-burly, give-and-take that is the hallmark of city life. They work hard, they go to church, their friends and neighbors are just like them, and they create jobs for many others in their communities (co-ops, ethanol plants, implement dealerships, meat packing plants, etc.) So those not as well off as the farmers themselves often still think like them. Farmers and ranchers are largely self-sufficient (I know, there are some crop and dairy subsidies, and they don't think of Social Security checks and Medicaid payments for Mom's nursing home to be hand-outs.) But they work hard doing a job they love and don't ask for much help. To many, the federal government's job is to tote the mail and defend the borders. Period. (Never mind the feedlots, dairies and packing plants that dot the landscape are staffed almost entirely by immigrant workers.) There are hardly any black people outside their small cities, and unless they play sports for the state's universities, they are often viewed with suspicion. However, these rural folks are quite friendly and generous to the people they know and trust.
1
The political imbalance in the Senate between sparsely populated white rural areas and diverse urban areas would be even more apparent if gerrymandering were eliminated. This would add 25-30 seats to the Democratic total in the House.
That said, I don't think we necessarily need to pile one constitutional crisis on top of another. The demographic shifts in America will eventually overwhelm rural America as well -- just look at minority/majority Dodge City, Kansas as a harbinger of the future.
When that time comes (I'm estimating about six to eight election cycles from now), the major constitutional question will not focus on whether we should have an unrepresentative Senate and a more representative House, since the distinction between the two houses of Congress will be less and less apparent. It will be whether we should do the rational thing and switch to a parliamentary system of government.
Compounding the problem of disproportionate state populations skewing representation is the history of primary elections having low voter turnout. For example, in a state such as Wyoming with an already small number (~428K, 2016) of eligible voters its the much smaller number ( estimated to be 10K, maybe a bit more) who actually participate in the caucus system that determine who is on the final ballot. Now if I have a large pool of money and I desire to influence an election (getting primaried from the right for example) it makes Wyoming a much more attractive target than a state such as New York. I can spend much more money per person of influence in WY than I can in NY because there are so few who participate. The result is a primary that promotes candidates that are selected by a very small sliver of the population they will represent.
A potential solution is to have open primaries with a runoff general election. In the primary, the 2 candidates (regardless of party affiliation) with the highest total votes move on to the general election. With this system, the emphasis is on getting the highest voter turnout, not the least. It does not solve the disparity of population differences between states but it does make the primary elections more representative of the voting population.
Here is an idea. Those who feel this way and are living in a blue state can move to a red state and register to vote. Be a good neighbor, mow your lawn, volunteer at the hospital or library. Learn about local issues and vote, vote, vote. Retiring baby boomers, millennials, anyone who can telecommute, it wouldn't take many Democrats to swing a sparsely populated state in another direction.
4
Although I agree with Krugman, here's one argument that is worth considering PRO giving rural states an over-representation in Congress.
Not all jobs that the US needs are urban or suburban jobs. There's also something called "agriculture", and to be able to feed America, you need wide, open spaces without human beings.
So agricultural states will always necessarily be low-population states. If you have an entirely representative Senate, people doing all that hard work on the fields will never have any influence on policy-making in DC. So somehow, concretely, their voices will be represented, but not to the extent of someone who works for Silicon Valley (and probably gets a much higher salary on top of that).
The only difference here is the kind of job they have.
So the question is: should people working in agriculture have less weight, proportionally, on what happens in DC, than people working in hi-tech, or do we need both kinds of jobs, and as a consequence should value their votes equally?
To value them equally, in this case, does mean giving them more Senators than what they would have if we only take population into account.
That being said, I don't think that the difference between real America and Senate America has anything to do with this. The main reason is political: the massive amount of fake news that the GOP and Fox News send to rural areas, and that completely distorts those people's views and as a consequence votes.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Orwell always cheers me up. That all makes good sense, Paul. America is a democracy, but the votes in Senate America--a minority of Americans--count much more than the votes in real America--the majority. The midterm results are the altogether predictable result of the well understood demographic changes and subsequent cultural differences. Senate America is white men over 45 who are afraid of losing their unmerited white male entitlements, and the white women who feel the same way. Senate America is inordinately fond of (in truth, tickled silly by) Trump's lies, demonization and fear. Senate America couldn't care less about the Constitution, voting rights, democracy, likely treason by the chief, etc. The representatives of Senate America are walking around on their rear trotters. The farm is going to hell in a handbasket.
1
This would not be a problem if so much policy was not controlled from Washington. The issue is that the 50 states are not meant to be administrative subdivisions of the federal government. The United States is too large and diverse to be centrally governed - there are some areas where a national policy is needed, but many more where California should be California and Alabama be Alabama. Institutions like the Senate and the Supreme Court are not meant to be directly representative bodies, to avoid the excesses of direct democracy going back to Classical Athens. The trouble comes when these institutions are allowed to exceed their intended remit. No one would be frothing over a turn in the Supreme Court if it stuck to interpreting legislation rather than writing it for the most importnant isuuses of our day.
2
The United States, if it is to survive, must be a democracy – and we have ceased to be that. There will always be an element that seeks to subvert the will of the people through political chicanery. That will never change, but it can be dealt with through political means. Our constitution, however, has built-in, anti-democratic mechanisms that, unless changed, may speed the demise of the union. The first is the Senate, an American House of Lords, unaccountable to the people, non-representative and traditionally the protector of the American Aristocracy at the expense of all others. The second is the Electoral College, disproportionately weighted to favor less populated rural states. In less than two decades, this constitutional anachronism has resulted in the selection of two candidates who lost the popular vote. Each has been a complete disaster. Let’s change this now so we don’t find ourselves fighting the same fight we fought 240 years ago.
Stuff and nonsense. These arguments against equal representation in the Senate are as old as the Constitution. Unlike Mr. Krugman and some of the commentators on the right, the Constitutional Congress were pragmatists, not ideologues. They recognized a more perfect union as the ideal, but were ready to accept a less perfect union rather than anarchy. They recognized they would never get the less populous states to join the Union unless they offered them the carrot of equal representation in the upper house of Congress. Nothing has changed. Does anyone really think Montana and New Hampshire would agree to scrap their representation in the Senate so the people in New York and California feel better represented? Our current system is "fair" because it's a compromise that allows us to function as a democracy -- imperfectly perhaps -- but still better than nothing at all, which, incidentally, is what we'll have if we continue to listen to ideologues on the left and right.
2
@Steve
That pragmatism resulted in the continuation of human slavery and an eventual (I would say inevitable) civil war that costs the lives of a half million Americans.
@Joe That pragmatism also prevented the creation of separate nation-states or a confederation of regional states (e.g., New England, Mid-Atlantic, South) some of which would almost certainly have perpetuated slavery longer than the Civil War. Not to mention the multiple civil wars that would likely have broken out among those nation-states and the international conflicts that would have ensued as foreign governments attempted to pit one state against another and one region of the country against another. As bad as slavery was, an imperfect union of thirteen colonies with restricted slavery laws was better than thirteen independent states with unrestricted slavery in seven or eight of them.
1
@Steve
That of course is speculation. What is not speculation, however, is that a great evil was enshrined in the constitution thus ensuring its perpetuation and expansion. This compromise also stained our national character and exacerbated the cost of the inevitable bloodletting that followed. We are still paying the price of that compromise. Generally, when a government compromises with organized crime, drug cartels or other such wickedness, we think of that government as corrupt and doomed. But when our own government compromised with what was generally accepted to be a great evil, we call it pragmatism. Our history books laud the brilliance of the great compromise, even though that compromise robbed millions of Africans of their lives and liberty and led to a civil war. If we are to learn from history, we have to face certain ugly truths.
Makes one wonder why the big states don't divide up and apply for admission. You could even write the new state constitutions so that they confederate and share responsibility for functions and services. In this way, California could apply to be five federal states with ten senators (some, invariably, republican!) but still largely operate at the state level the same way it does today. The confederation idea would also be useful for existing small (population) rural states - why have separate state legislatures and departments for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming when a single legislature and "Departments of X" could certainly handle services for the combined population of 3.3 million people more efficiently and effectively?
Long story short, we designed our government infrastructure two centuries ago for a very different country. Time to start being innovative.
1
Senate representation is the only provision in the constitution that can't be amended without the consent of the state affected, i.e, all the states. Without equal representation in the Senate, the colonies would never have come together to become a nation. Sensible then, not so much now but we are stuck with it.
Barring some miraculous sudden change in human nature, it will never be possible to pass a constitutional amendment that would make the Senate more representative. Sooner or later, this question, like that of slavery in the 19th century, will lead to civil war and, very possibly the breakup of the nation into smaller, more homogeneous entities. At age 70, I have some hope of being gone before this calamity arrives, but I don't see how it can be avoided.
The US Senate voted to confirm judge Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, handing Donald Trump a major victory and America a bench expected to tilt to the right for the next generation.
1
The election process for the President, the Vice-president, and Senators has been changed by Amendment several times since the Constitution was ratified. Perhaps the extreme disparities now revealed will inspire a similar change.
So much has changed: 50 states vs. 13; basically a two-party system; the end of slavery; immigration restrictions; international commerce, etc.
We have survived not because The Founders solidified a Constitution, but because they left open the possibility of modification.
2
I just wonder how Barack Obama got elected President twice, and how the Democrats ended up with majority control of the Senate from 2007-2011. Indeed, Democrats controlled the Senate for a majority of the period from 1932-1994. Even when Republicans have controlled the Senate, their control has not been by an overwhelming majority. Maybe the real problem has been the quality of candidates on both sides of the aisle, and their willingness to speak to all of the voters instead of only the ones who are not "deplorable."
I think Krugman's real complaint is that many voters do not agree with him on substantive policy issues and he is looking for ways to silence the voters who disagree. Maybe he still does not understand why his candidate in 2016 could not win in the states Obama won in 2008 and 2012. It obviously wasn't about racism or misogyny, it was about the quality of the candidate, and the willingness of the candidate to talk to all of the people, including the ones she considered to be "deplorable."
3
Totally agree with Dr. Krugman. Can we start by giving congressional representation, including in the Senate, to DC residents? How this injustice is allowed to persist year after year is a complete disgrace. Nearly 750,000 citizens reside in DC - more than in Wyoming and Vermont - yet we have zero voting representation in congress.
4
Suppose some rich people bought a few of those rural states and thereby gained a sizable interest in the Senate? Oh wait - they already did.
4
Let's not forget the original concept of the Senate, slavery. The government was not conceived as a Democratic institution.
2
Dr. Krugman has again hit the nail on the head. A foolish leader like Trump only aggravates and exposes the glaring and recklessly dangerous mal-apportionment of the Senate and the equally dysfunctional Electoral College. Moreover, I agree with readers who say that the great wisdom and brilliance of the Constitutional Founders would find a way to dissolve these fatal obstacles to a rational republican basis for government in this country.
2
I think blaming the constitutional makeup of Congress is weak. If you want a blue Senate then Democratic leadership - I'm talking to you Perez, Schumer and Pelosi - needs to channel their inner FDR and/or Bernie Sanders and make the middle class, working class and poor their #1 through #100 priority and tell Wall Street to cut bait. Until that happens there is no reason for rural America to vote Democratic - and that hurts to say such as I am a progressive.
1
@William Anfin
If they did that, why would Wall Street donate big money to Democratic candidates, like the one in 2016?
As Trump’s bizarre mood swings and obvious mental decline accelerate -- which they show every indication of doing now -- the people in this country who are counting on the stock market to protect them from his ongoing idiocies are in for a nasty surprise,
The stock market -- which is to say the business community -- may welcome some loosening of environmental regulations and additional tax breaks for the wealthy, but it isn’t crazy enough to indefinitely welcome a President who from hour to hour performs erratically, seemingly without reason or purpose other than to confuse and disable his opponents, who make up the majority of the American people.
2
Here' an idea to "save" rural America. Immigration. Give special consideration to people willing to immigrate to rural areas of the country. Maybe these new immigrants could save themselves some money and come here in a "caravan".
As a rural white male...I would love to see more diversity in my community. We have plenty of Trump clones now...don't need any more of them. But young, hard working central Americans? Not nearly enough of them around. So sad.
2
As a third generation Democrat have been increasingly frustrated for more than a decade that the party didn't seem to want to admit that the electoral college, the senate and the Constitutional amendment process all reflect a geographic distribution of power among the states. Abandonment of vast swaths of America in elections put the party in a huge hole. From the successes in the Midwest Tuesday it seems like the Democrats are beginning to return to a fifty state strategy. The vision of an America of growing concentric circles of development around urban centers reachable for most people in soul sucking commutes may not be as durable as those media outlets in urban centers want us to believe. While the coastal elite Democrats divide between so-called corporate Democrats and the Bernie Sanders wing intent on saving us from super delegates and taking power from other Democrats, the country depends on electing more people like Jon Tester, Tammy Baldwin and Amy Klubachar to achieve anything meaningful for ordinary people. Broadband everywhere, healthcare and other needs can be unifying. The palpable condescension of thought leaders portraying non-urban America as a monolith is not only unfair but assures a government incapable of ever doing big things again. Non-urban America is a minority with serious varied problems and certain poltical protections as old as the Constitution. That can be viewed in terms of shared humanity or political necessity but it's not going away.
The solution, of course , is for highly educated people of diverse backgrounds to move to rural areas. When will this happen?
Paul- You should check out my comment on Jon Tester, our Democratic Senator from Montana, and perhaps visit with him.
I believe any attempt to turn the Senate into the House will be mightily resisted by rural states. Maybe a better solution would be to see how Democrats like Jon Tester can get elected in rural states.
2
The Senate was, of course, designed to be unrepresentative of population, so that small states like Rhode Island and Delaware wouldn't be overwhelmed by large ones like New York and Virginia. (Indeed, the infamous 3/5-of-a-man provision was also concession to small states, so that large slaveholding states wouldn't also have an unfair weight in the House.) But the power of small, unpopulous states in the Senate was historically constrained by a variety of “cooling saucer” rules and customs, such as the filibuster and “blue slips” which required cross-aisle consensus building to pass legislation or approve appointments. Starting with the Republican Revolution in the mid-90s, these guardrails were progressively dismantled by GOP majorities — and the whipping power of their caucus ever more rigidly enforced — so that now neither majority party has any incentive to compromise or even deliberate...just jam through its agenda.
There are practical solutions to the problem of rural bias in Senate representation. Without a Constitutional amendment, DC & Puerto Rica could be made states, adding four Senate seats.
And, facts do matter. Republican policies fail spectacularly in the real world. Take out the white nationalism & Trumponomics is the same old, same old trickle down, anti-regulatory scam that led to the Great Bush Recession. And Trump foreign policy, led by Bush retread John Bolton, has elements of Neo-Con hubris that led to Iraq and ISIS. Even Senate America is not immune to the pain Republican policies engender.
What angers me about the Democrats is that the knowledge of this math has been available equally to them -- forever! Yet, the Republicans implemented a strategy starting over 40 years ago to target voters in states with low population (who at that time were just as likely to be Democrats). They started with AM radio. So cheap and simple. But they knew this was a media largely consumed in vast rural America. Democrats never took this propagandizing seriously enough. It's not enough to run ads right before an election when every Republican ad can throw out a couple of words (Pelosi! Caravan! Liberals!), which on their own are nonsensical, but to propaganda-prepped ears stand in for hundreds of hours of narratives.
2
Well if we REALLY want to return to the framers original intent we should revert to senators selected by state legislatures!
1
The 2 Senators/State rule also distorts the electoral college - another reason to change this !
1
The suggestion that the allegedly unsophisticated heartland of America is less "real" than the allegedly sophisticated coastal states, implies that those who dwell in America's heartland are somehow lesser Americans. That is offensive.
1
@frugalfish
Read the article. That's not what he is saying at all.
Also, we've been hearing the tired old trope for years about how "real Americans" are those white rural folks, and the rest of us are the "evil coastal elites." This column is just turning that on its head.
1
It’s not a zero-sum game as the number of senators can increase by State to reflect the Population. Would be a game changer. Paul K, what does the payoff matrix look like to you on the possibilities?
In order to reach rural American, the Democrats have to develop a propaganda machine to counter the right's domination of AM radio. Rural America has been bombarded for decades by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all the other. It's no wonder they've flipped right. What do the democrats have besides the Daily Show? Propaganda is used because Propaganda WORKS.
1
I live just north of the Atlanta metro area and it the vote is overwhelmingly Republican. The "evangelical" community will overlook any sin of the president to get Roe V. Wade overturned.
1
Ironic that those who live in rural America most likely depend on the environment to make a living. Yet they vote for the most anti-environment candidates on Earth. I wonder what loggers think when they see entire forests going up in smoke, or farmers losing their crops in a once in 500 year drought or flood every other year or fishing areas moving north while crustaceans are acidified out of existence.
Even more ironic is that the poorly educated - dumb-down by the Republicans, as they like them given how they trash education, take away funding and promote idiocy and lies - keep voting as the educated exploitative class the GOP represent want and that keeps the rural poorly educated and whose social supports are stolen to give cash tax cut handouts to those who already have too much of everything.
The rural class are exploited for votes and their wealth - what tiny amount they do have - and blame Democrats, immigrants and "others" for their predicament. They are the fake-wrestling class - where there are no rules, there is a lot of cheating and back stabbing, betrayals, chaos, disrespect, and some real injuries all making the ruling class of such a business rich.
The "growing crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system" also extends to the growing illegitimacy of the justice system where judges are not only appointed but stolen with impunity.
1
These articles about equal representation of states in the Senate always point out Wyoming - those overrepresented Republicans. Why is Rhode Island, population 1.06M, not discussed? Is it inherently okay to have an overrepresentation of Democrats in the Senate?
Does not Mr. Krugman's assertions prove the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution? Apparently he does not see the irony of what he writes; his viewpoint is the reason we have a Senate.
1
Trump was the reason Democrats won in the suburbs this year. If Republicans nominate a McCain or a Romney many more will vote Republican in these areas.
Why is anyone attracted to white nationalism? Little kids don't care about skin color--I have seen this with my own kids. It is learned. Rather than throw in the towel in rural states, this problem needs to be confronted by the whole country.
Mr. Krugman can fan all of the White nationalism he wants. The problems with this country have nothing to do with this fringe minority which is a poison to this country. The Senate, & the House for that matter, have failed Americans for at least 30 years. Congress consistently votes against the will of the people. We pat ourselves on the back for a better midterm voter turnout that should be happening every election cycle. The midterms were a wash. If you look at it from a historical perspective one could argue it was a win or at least a minor win for the GOP if you look at the midterm loses from the past 3 presidents. The GOP gained Senate seats, something that hasn't happened since before world war II. Thanks to the inept handling of the Kavanaugh nomination the Democrats handed the GOP their rallying cry. The Caravan coming here to America is the cherry on top of GOP strategy. The question I'd to ask my new House majority Democrats is, Are you going to try to govern or stay in the mud with this president?. Isn't it time for someone to come up with an immigration policy that creates US citizens for those who have been here for years? Isn't it time to for a real attempt at fixing the health problems in this country? If Democrats stay in the sewer with Trump and the economy tanks it's going to fall on you. If you propose bills to help Americans & the country & Trump & the GOP shoot them down then you'll have excellent talking points for the 2020 election.
2
Real Americans are Americans willing to serve in the Army.
The rest are free riders
1
Mr Krugman For President. Oh what a difference that would make. Although I thoroughly agree with this article, one must always remember that there are no hard and fast dividing lines. There always exceptions to the rule. Not everyone in a given rural area is a tRumplodite. Not everyone in the urban center is a Liberal. But a preponderance of those in their respective areas are as Mr. Krugman says, with the results stated. I personally find that a Fox News watcher is more apt to be out of touch with reality (since the message from Fox is always skewed towards division and hate), while the mainstream media news watcher is more in tune with reality. Fox News is a big part of the problem. But not the cause. The cause is the ignorance and bigotry of your average ugly american.
I used those exact figures for Wyoming and CA in an earlier message to one of this week's NYT articles. How can one even begin to suggest, that one vote being worth 80 times more than another, in govt. representation, can by any measure, be acceptable in a democracy?
As to how to square that circle, you first of all have to stop fetishising about pieces of paper that were produced by white, wig wearing, slave owners, as the be all and end all of a continuing mandate over the plebiscite.
Times change. Move with them and stick those papers in a glass case where they belong. You can still adhere to their spirit, by distilling their aspirational essence in forming new rules to govern.
Interestingly, I just read somewhere that the US ought to consider eliminating meaningful Senate power in the same way the English converted the House of Lords to an historical footnote in 1911.
As long as Trump was gashing the rule of law to get what Republicans in Congress wanted --- kill ACA (aka Obamacare), pass a ridiculous tax cut, punish immigrants, help them keep their House and Senate seats --- they supported him and turned their heads when convenient. Most of the Republican members of Congress detest the dictators from Russia, North Korea, Turkey, etc. So, what are they going to do now that the election is over as they watch their America move more and more toward an autocratic form of government that they have, in the past, hated? Will they start standing up to Trump? We will soon see with the Mueller investigation. Are they going to let Trump defy the rule of law to control how he should be investigated or will they get off their butts and try to save some of their legacy?
The founders conceived of the Senate as an institution of elites counterbalancing the passions of the rabble represented in the House. At the time, Senators would be chosen not elected. Of course, few Americans could read or write much less were they educated. Women could not vote, blacks were property,
Times and circumstances change and modern America looks little like the “original” America did. But our constitution never was intended to be as democratic as our national myth.
2
Good article as usual, but I'll quibble with one sentence. " "Despite some bitter disappointments and lost ground in the Senate."
It looks like if the republicans don't illegally shut down counting the votes in AZ and FL, there won't be any lost ground. NYTimes has to do a good job showing the efforts of republicans to steal these two seats.
1
Why don't leftists just come out and say it-they don't like the Constitution and they want direct democracy? Every howl about popular votes, court packing, and a Senate that doesn't look and function just like the House, reveals their intent. Krugman shows a form of intellectual bigotry that is based on arrogance and the self-perpetuation of privileges given to those who get formal educations at elite schools. He assumes his leftist cohort has a monopoly on truth and worthwhile ideas. I'd ask him to please stop, except he signals simultaneously and clearly why the intellectual leaders inside the blue bubble need to be beaten with the vote and the motivation the rest of us have to do so.
2
Congress can, with the consent of states, subdivide states into separate states. So California, New York, etc. can be subdivided. It’s about time, if you ask me...
I read somewhere (if it's on the web, it must be true) that, by 2040, 70% of the American people will live in 15 states, but 70 Senators will represent only 30% of the People.
This hegemony of the minority is reminiscent of the 1850s where the Slaveocrats stimied the expansion of the United States. And, it will lead to a Tawney-like Court (he wrote the decision in Sanford vs. Scott) completely at odds with the majority of the country. And, those 15 states containing 70% of the people will continue to subsidize 30% who live low-population rural states. In 1789, VA was the largest state, but only 3 times larger than the smallest state. Now CA is almost 70 times the size of WY.
Like the 1850s, I don't think this situation is sustainable.
1
The foundation of a sound democracy is representation of the people, not representation of real estate. The House, in spite of the atrocious abuse of gerrymandered districts, is coming close to represent voters by number. The Senate does not. Your juxtaposition of Wyoming and California makes the point.
The framers of the constitution were thoughtful patriots who did a great job considering the time they lived in. They knew that a living democracy needs to evolve and provided a path to amend and change the constitution. Thoughtful change will need thoughtful public dialogue and talented lawmakers who have the best of their country at heart. Change may be coming one day, but the current polarized Congress gives little hope for that to happen.
A bunch of dems have to colonize the less populated states. There will be no possibility of constitutional amendments or other remedies until then.
I don’t think this is as ridiculous as it may first sound. If retirees from California moved to democratic enclaves in say Wyoming or Montana they could quickly turn that state blue. Older retirees will need younger folks to provide care etc. Cultural groups from the coasts and blue cities in the middle can carry out their civic duty to these pioneers by visiting on a regular basis. The mere presence of these democratic newcomers will energize democratic voters in these now sparsely settled places.
A similar move of folks from New England, New York and Maryland to say Florida could ensure that that state registers as clearly blue. Florida holds a lot of electoral votes in the balance. Just be sure to locate on high ground in a well built structure.
Whose ready to sacrifice for the cause? If these communities are built, folks will come.
The other way to look at Tuesday's elections is that Democrats did very well in gubernatorial and senate races, even if they didn't win. O'Rourke did very well in Texas--better than Democrats have typically done of late--and could have a better shot running against the non-incumbent Republican challenger when Cornyn gives up his seat in 2020. The race in Arizona is too close to call, although Sinema currently has a thin lead. Joe Manchin won in West Virginia, Sherrod Brown won in Ohio, and Jon Tester won in Montana. Rick Scott may have declared victory over Bill Nelson in Florida, but the vote is close enough that it's likely going to end in a hand recount, and the race between Ron DeSantis and Andrew Gillum may be heading to a machine recount as well. Just across the border in Georgia, Stacy Abrams also did very well in her race against Brian Kemp--whether or not Kemp will ultimately be declared the winner, or if there's a runoff election in December. There is indeed hope for the senate, and for America.
1
Beware the Tyranny of the Majority. Consider that a the majority of the population lives in a very small minority of the territory. The needs and wishes of persons in rural areas and low population density state can be significantly different than those in major population centers. The structure of the House and Senate strikes a reasonable balance for representing those needs at the federal level.
I grew up in a rural, strongly Republican area and still have strong roots there. I have lived in a major suburban, strongly Democrat, area most of my adult life. I've lived both sides of this issue.
It seems to me that many urban and suburban residents have an arrogance about them regarding rural areas and residents. It seems to me this arrogance is more apparent to rural residents than the ways in which Democrat party's platform may benefit them more than the Republican platform.
If Democrats want to take the Senate, develop some humility, learn what matters to rural voters, and learn how to communicate how Democrats can advance what matters to them better than Republicans can.
The electoral college is anachronistic, but it should not be replaced by a simple plurality vote ( a candidate can win with less than 50% of votes). Some sort of rank order voting / instant runoff system would ensure that the president is elected by a majority of votes and would encourage candidates to appeal to as many voters as possible, not just the base, and not just population centers.
2
The Wyoming-California comparison is, of course, correct. But it is even much worse: California has almost 40 million people, and so have the smallest 23 states combined. But they also have 46 senators instead of 2! And the same disparity goes on to shape the electoral college. Since 1992 Democrats won the popular vote in all but one election (2004). And yet, Republicans won the presidency three times out of seven presidential elections. 2000 and 2016, just 16 years apart, saw presidents with a minority of the popular vote.
This might work in an 18th century republic, but it is highly problematic in a 21st century democracy. When a minority of voters regularly and systematically wins elections, there is a problem for democratic theory and democratic practice, for the legitimacy of the entire political system.
2
The US Constitution was a remarkable document for the 18th C., but it has not kept up with democracy. The 13 original states had some claim to sovereignty. One can make a similar argument for Texas and maybe California. BUT the other states are artificially created provinces as PK points out. The late Senator Patrick Moyihan suggested reforms of the Senate, such as 1 Senator for each state and the others distributed proportionately by population. That would still give small states more representation, but less extreme. Statehood for DC and PR are worthy goals in themselves. BTW, Australia is also a federation of previously separate provinces/colonies. Their senate is weighted in part by population so Tasmania (0.5 mil) doesn't have the same power as New South Wales (8 mil).
1
Beto O’Rourke proved that by giving sincere attention and voice to the concerns of rural voters in deep red Texas, Democrats can be highly competitive in such locales. While a Constitutional amendment should be avidly pursued addressing Dr. Krugman’s important concerns, for the immediate future an “O’Rourke Strategy” should be implemented with, of course, authentic and talented candidates standing for office. There will be areas of honest disagreement but the sheer force of personality can work wonders, and make voters receptive to viewpoints that they previously shut their ears and minds to.
1
This column, and others like it published in growing volume in recent years, would be laughable except for their corrosive acid drip effect on trust in our political system. Lose to George W. Bush and Donald Trump: abolish the Electoral College. Not win as many House seats as you wanted: eliminate gerrymandering. Didn’t get that Senate majority: change the way senators are elected. If you couldn’t beat Bush and Trump, you should choose better candidates. As to the other two issues, I don’t recall Democratic bellyaching about them when they controlled the House and Senate for most of the last half of the 20th century. This debate about the Senate is silly. There is a zero percent chance that a constitutional amendment could be passed to change the method by which senators are elected. So what honorable purpose is served by undermining belief in the legitimacy of our electoral process? We have all played by the same rules for nearly a quarter of a millennium and they have served us well. The Founders’ vision remains as astute as always. If the Democrats want to gain control of the government, maybe they should focus on a policy agenda that serves all of America and not attack the legitimacy of our political system.
1
A majority of the country's population is represented by just eighteen senators. The percentage of the population required to elect a Senate majority, in effect the people of the twenty six smallest states say, is a robust seventeen percent.
1
Ironically after all this time it appears that a parliamentary system might represent us better. The hodgepodge of the states are not really indicative of anything. As the country spread west blocks of land, mainly empty, were designated by area not population, which is how this mess developed in the first place. There are multiple millions of Greens in this country (like me) who have virtually no representation. A Farmers Party, a Workers Party etc. Each would have some voice in a Parliament. Groups would need to work together to get anything done. Of course nothing like this will ever happen.
1
The fault is the great compromise made 241 years ago in Philadelphia between the small and large states of that time and between slave states and states on their way to becoming free states (only Pennsylvania had by then outlawed the "peculiar institution).
That's the problem with "original intent", the same original intent that would consider Justice Clarence Thomas three fifths of a person is the same original intent that disenfranchises 39.4 million Californians, that disenfranchises me and 8.8 million of my fellow New Jerseyans.
How to change it? Change the Constitution. How likely is that? 100% Unlikely -- and would we, should we, can we risk opening it up to amendment when Mr. Krugman's Senate America would decide the amendments? No, we can't.
1
I live in Montana, one of those states that is supposedly "over-represented" in the Senate according to Paul.
Our Democratic senator, Jon Tester, has found ways to juggle the needs of our rural and urban populations by being a right-leaning Democrat who is willing to unashamedly compromise with Republicans on occasion.
It doesn't hurt that Tester is also a bona fied "dirt farmer" who has an intimate understanding of rural issues. Perhaps that is what helped him withstand (an unprecedented) four visits from Trump, three visits from Pence, and several visits from Trump Jr. who tried mightily to unseat him.
Maybe Senate Democratic candidates in rural states should consult with Tester to see what advice he has to offer.
4
It's not just Dr. Krugman sounding the alarm -- it is also a matter of international concern. Yesterday's Economist posted this with regards to the election results:
"In a country where one chamber of the legislature is based on population and the other on territory, this division is a recipe for gridlock, poor governance and, eventually, disenchantment with the political system itself."
2
Your attitude has the ongoing pejorative flavor that Democrats continually offer about the Midwest.
Rural America reflects a way of life that is deliberate, a spaciousness and community that large metropolitan areas can't give. Isolation and loneliness often go hand in hand with big city life. If your bellwether on "intelligence" is only 4yr college, you're missing the larger community colleges that are highly attended and add to an educated populace. Our communities with growing minorities have been welcomed warmly as neighbors.
But Midwesterners don't want to be governed by the coasts' attitudes/ large populations. The electoral college AND the Senate reflect each states profile, no matter their size, which is good.
It seems common these days, unfortunately, to denigrate White rural citizens and you're doing your part on that.
3
Dr Krugman,
I appreciate your insight into this flaw in our, American style, democratic system of self governance.
Have you any ideas how we can correct the over representation/under representation of the electorate in the US Senate? I would like to know what a fairer system would look like.
1
Clearly Civics 101 is in order for Dr Krugman and so many of his supporters herein.
The House represents the population; the Senate represents the states. The original 13 colonies formed a union based on that compromise.
As always, it’s disconcerting how many of my fellow citizens want to turn over the Constitutional order for political gain.
They should realize the Founding Fathers were dramatically wiser than those complaining today. And we should thank God for that.
3
As a few people have pointed out, maybe the issue is not so much the senate per se, but rather, maybe we should ask WHY rural america is not a representative sample of america in general?
In these pages and elsewhere, I've seen references to many studies, books, and articles describing the plight of rural america in term of economic and cultural insecurities. These analysis however never explain why these insecurities translate into anger toward liberals, cities, or progressive movements. In fact, most attempts at explanation stop after repeating some right-wing talking points ("liberals are condescending toward rural areas", "rural areas are ignored", ...) that, if you take the time to look a bit deeper, are highly questionable! For example, "rural area are ignored": this column just explained how disproportionate their influence is on the political process; "liberals are condescending toward rural area": sorry but may I ask where you see that outside of right-wing echo chambers? Looks at mainstream media: rural areas are continuously presented as the "true" representation of america; in movies, how often are héros from small-town america and villains from the city?
In short, my take is that the true problem is that the republicans have been better at propaganda and at convincing the rural areas that their insecurities are caused by liberals and democrats. However, this shows a way forward: don't change the constitution, instead counter that propaganda!
2
Compare us to most other industrialized and informationalized countries, and we come up very, very short.
The Senate was designed the way it was specifically to give equal weight to each state based on geographic, economic and societal concerns of the state. One of the driving reasons behind this compromise was slavery. Another was farming. A third was fishing. A fourth was trade.
We should re-examine Congress in light of today's needs for a geographically diverse, populous, prosperous, heavily federalized nation, not the needs of a small, struggling federation with minimal power on the world stage.
However, any changes must be considered very, very carefully.
Changing the makeup of Congress would require a major re-write of the Constitution. Any such change should not be done with a vacuum between the structure of Congress and the structure of elections. It should not ignore the needs of the voters or the economy that supports the citizens, but it should provide a good balance.
Winning back rural America seems more distant than ever. How as a highly educated American can I talk to these Americans who are evidently not interested in controlling expensive health care, bad transportation options, job opportunities wrecked by chain stores, a struggling agriculture economy and, of course, the opioid epidemic? They only want to talk about immigrants taking their high paying jobs away, or abortion, or gay marriage or "those people". Rational discussion seems impossible in my experience in New Mexico, and given that New Mexico is a solid blue state after this election, they are so angry that discussion is not on the table. So, what do we do? The Senate appears to be a lock for Republicans for decades, and maybe the presidency, and the Supreme Court may soon be 6-3 with an essentially permanent extreme conservative majority. Sure, we put the brakes on Republican cruelty and anti-American "vision", by re-taking the House, but how will that bring in rural America. As a combat veteran I cannot recognize my own country. This victory Tuesday is marred by a greater truth - we may have permanently lost our democracy.
3
You make a good point Paul, but I missed the part where you provided the solution. Maybe because under the system the Founders created, they purposely set it up to give smaller. less populated states an equal voice.
But maybe it isn't the system that's a problem, but rather how the system has been broken by increasing tribalism that prevents any form of compromise. The Senate has always been the great deliberative body, less subject to the whims and passions of the moment since Senators serve 6 years and don't stand for election as often as Representatives or even the President. As such, they historically have been the compromisers, crafting solutions that while not as "pure", were often more widely accepted. However, over the past few decades, as partisanship has grown, helped by (mostly conservative) partisan media, the makeup of Congress, particularly the Senate, has changed likewise, turning it into a partisan, not deliberative body.
The solution is to reinstate restrictions on media that use federal airwaves and facilities to prohibit partisanship, and reduce its impact on people. Unfortunately, those in charge of making these changes are the partisans, so the People need to elect those more inclined to compromise than to impose their partisan ideas. It may already be too late, but the Founders knew that without compromise-even over great divides-democracy isn't possible.
1
It is grossly unfair and undemocratic that people in sparsely-populated states have a disproportionately greater voice in the Senate and Electoral College. I recognize that this arrangement was necessary in 1787 to get the small states to join the union. 231 years later we need a more equitable arrangement. I'd suggest that each of the 50 states gets one senator. For the remaining 50 seats, the states with greater populations such as Texas and California are then divided into senatorial districts based on population so that everyone gets one senator, either statewide or for their district. It would not be perfectly representative but at least it would be better than the system we have today. To make this change would, of course, require a constitutional amendment. Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to go along with such a change. For too many people (especially politicians) power is more important than fairness.
1
Surely there is an answer. The citizens of, say California, observe that they are woefully underrepresented and divide their state into five logical pieces. Each of the five new states has two U.S. senators.
It's happened before, and for political reasons: the western Virginia counties decided to become their own state.
Yes--if Texans decide to do that, Texas 1 might be blue and Texas 2 might be red. Sooo? It's about representative government, right?
If one big state does it, others will follow.
3
The constitution was written in a particular context, as a sales pitch to state governments that were wary of binding themselves together at all. The union was a marriage of convenience. We've had nearly 200 years to get used to the idea, and I think by now we can agree that if the country is to survive, it needs to walk back from the deliberately fractious elements of its founding document. There's no reason to abolish states, but why should they be represented as entities in the federal government at all? Why not elect the Senate and House seats purely on the basis of population, without respect to state boundaries? There are already rights carved out for state governments in the federal constitution -- those can stay, and Americans can continue to enjoy more local representation at the municipal and state levels where most of the legislation that governs their daily lives is forged. But for the national government, which purports to represent the country as a whole, there is no good argument for reproducing our arbitrary state boundaries in the legislature.
2
I used to respect Paul Krugman. His articles in the run up to the crash in 2007 were prescient and spot-on. Maybe his clarity was a result of that not really being a partisan issue. But I don't think he gets enough credit for being right about it.
This article, and the sub-heading is a joke. Our republic (not a democracy - never has been), has always been set up to give disproportionate voting control of the Presidency and the Senate to the less populated states. When the Democrats navigated this system in a way that gave them control, the system was all well and good, and we didn't hear a word about about how the system was unfair.
Now that the Democrats have abandoned and largely vilified working class white rural voters, and lost control over the Senate and the Presidency because of it, the Republic is bad and we should modify it to make it a pure democracy. So, either way, as long as the structure works to provide the Democrats with control, it is a good structure.
Maybe if he, or anyone else, had been saying a single word about this when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and Congress not more than 6 years ago, it would have some legitimacy.
But to increase agitation about the legitimacy of our government mainly because your party has not prevailed in the system that has been stable for a couple hundred years is irresponsible and dangerous. And its something that I'd normally expect more from the other side of the isle.
4
@Frank
Can you please explain how have the Democrats have abandoned and largely vilified working class white rural voters?
Let's solve the problem of the political divide in this country creatively. It's time for those of us in the overcrowded metropolitan areas to colonize less-populated parts of our great country.
In our big cities, the cost and engineering and disruption required to modernize infrastructure are prohibitive. Our very attractiveness is becoming a hazard to mental and social health. Instead of thinking of forward-looking solutions to problems of unsustainable cities and dying small towns in rural areas, investment-developers are building more, tiny apartments and making the metropolitan areas and their suburbs yet more unlivable.
With all our technological interconnectedness, coast dwellers can hope to move inland and live happily in smaller communities. They can bring with them the delights of coffee bars and tax money for libraries. The natives can either engage with new local opportunities or keep their doors closed.
Why not even out population nationally and solve our political, social, and environmental problems in one large movement? A better life for all, without bruising political fights over what the Constitution wants of us.
2
Being old, rich, and white is a feature of the Senate, not a flaw. It was designed after the Ancient Greek Senate and was supposed to be a wise council of elders to temper impassioned youthful exuberance. The problem is dark money has replaced wisdom as the criterion to being a Senator.
6
Not too many groups, especially groups in the minority, will vote to reduce their political influence. Given the huge hurdles that must be overcome to amend the Constitution there will not be any change. The Democratic Party must find a way to appeal to rural states and voters. This probably means accepting Democrats that favor some changes in immigration, some restrictions on abortions, etc. This would mean some compromises but it is better than what we have now.
2
Though I enjoy reading the New York Times, I like to imagine what it would read like without divisive descriptions of our citizens. The "college educated" versus the "uneducated" is an example. As a "college educated" "uneducated," I find both terms extremely segregating. Maybe a first step to "helping" the "uneducated" "working" people is to stop calling them names and stereotyping them. Focus on an egalitarian vocabulary. Words are powerful. Perhaps a recognition that ALL people really are created equal will emerge. Then problem solving can begin.
1
Let's take a look at some rural America statistics and related Obama-era policies:
Rural America has a higher percentage of homeowners - but Obama put the interests of banks ahead of distressed homeowners when he put bankers in charge of principle reduction decisions,
Rural Americans are older than their urban counterparts - Obama, twice proposed cuts to Social Security, joined by Nancy Pelosi
they are less well-off financially than urbanites and therefore more likely to be unable to afford to pay health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs - these are the people who would have benefitted from a "public plan" but Obama dropped it like a hot potato when the insurance industry protested.
If the Dems are serious about winning back the working class - and that is their only path to long-term success - then they need to drop the centrism that has led to the loss of power at the state and federal level. And let's face it, there was no "blue wave". The Dems only took half as many House seats as the 2008 Republicans.
Krugman's attempt to spin this might work with the urban elite, but to those of us who been outside of urban areas and talked to people there, we can't be fooled.
When you have Dem party leaders making comments like: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
~ Charles Schumer
4
Despite this "great economy"... $1.5T deficit spend, the people are stressed and immigration will continue resonate across party lines. Even in places like Silicon valley the demographics have changed dramatically in the past 25 years with large influxes of H1B persons from India and China. The Democrats would do well to recognize and address these issues.
2
I think that the problems of the citizens of the red states although superficially different than those of the blue states are fundamentally the same - the opportunities for they and their children to improve their economic level with affordable health care, high quality affordable education for their children and good infrastructure and a government that responds to their needs. The solutions to these problems will of necessity be different in the urban and rural environment but the goals essentially the same.
The republican party has done an excellent job of convincing the citizens of the red states that it is most able to help them and that the democratic party is only interested in the non-whites of this country. Unfortunately there is an element of truth here since the democratic party has in fact been more responsive to the minorities than white people. However, the republican party has become the spokesman for the wealthy, who for thousands of years have attempted to find justifications for their wealth. The republican party has convinced the people of the red states that their prosperity will follow from the success of the wealthy class. And as Dr. Krugman has said more than once the “supply side” approach has been a failure. The democratic party needs to more effectively connect with the people of the red states and demonstrate that it has the ideas that will fulfill their aspirations.
3
Paul: Very convenient your criticism (dislike?) of the senate (& the electoral college?) when your political faction happens to be on the losing/receiving end of an electoral defeat (i.e. GOP seats gained in Senate). The senate was created to avoid the exact scenario you seem to be advocating: absolute rule of a majority faction at the expense of the minority.
3
I grew up in Iowa. It doesn't get any more "real America" than that. But I have now lived in New Jersey longer than I ever lived in Iowa, and, of course, many more people live in crowded urban and suburban area than live in small towns and farms. So, statistically, Prof. Krugman is right that urbanites and suburbanites live in the "real" America. But, of course, there is no one "real" America. There are many different ways to be an American. We can draw distinctions between urban and rural America, but the city and the countryside are interdependent. Rural Americans depend on products and services from urban areas, and New Yorkers like Mr. Krugman need to eat.
On the political question, though, I agree emphatically with Prof. Krugman: the U.S. Senate has become so very unrepresentative that it is downright anti-democratic.
8
The U.S. cannot achieve political justice with the Electoral College and two Senators from every state, regardless of population.
We will never have representative democracy, unless we eliminate both the Electoral College and the Senate. Congress should be one house, perhaps with staggered four year terms.
If you say this will never happen, you're almost certainly right. The Senate has always represented, not the states, but the American oligarchy. The gospel of greed has always ruled America.
We can only limit our oligarchy's power here and there, but doing so can make a big positive difference, as the New Deal showed.
Can we get a new New Deal without the protracted national misery that brought about the original version? Unlikely.
5
The Constitution defined our nation as a sort of equal mix of urban and rural at a time when the population was more likely to be rural than it is today. Previous NYT opinion pieces have questioned the long term viability of a political system where the minority will rule consistently. And the situation is made worse by GOP efforts to suppress urban votes and further rural voting power through gerrymandering.
So, is our system viable long term? The talk of schism is often framed in terms of conservative rural values being imposed upon by liberal urban ones. Maybe the discussion should be reversed. Maybe the real discussion should be that political power should reside in the majority, not the minority.
4
Sorry to disabuse you Professor Krugman but most of us Republicans are not white nationalists or bigots or white supremacists. We are just regular voters who believe in the time tested principles of the GOP: smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; no deficit spending & a balanced budget; a strong defense; freedom for all (races, creeds, colors, political beliefs) to express themselves and pursue the opportunity of success and happiness.
It is unfortunate that currently the GOP has lost its way with regard to some of those principles but even with Trump at the helm, the Reps are far more conducive to those principles then are the Dems. The Dems want to restrict freedom of speech & religion; they want more state control over our lives; they believe in identity politics and diversity over merit; they believe in all kinds of political correctness and classifying everything they dislike as "hate speech;" they want to open our borders to everyone that wants to come in; and they are so infused with hate about Trump that they robotically oppose every issue he proposes.
It is true that the Republicans have abandoned some of their most cherished principles like a balanced budget. Some issues were just not popular with the electorate that wants more government programs without the taxes to pay for them. But, as bad as the GOP may be, it is light years ahead of the Dems on the fundamental principles of government.
5
@JAM
We are just regular voters who believe in the time tested principles of the GOP: smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; no deficit spending & a balanced budget.
Have fun eating sausage with sawdust filler, no taxes to pay for anything, and oh, don't forget that deficits don't matter (when Republicans are in control) except when Democrats control things. You want a balanced budget? Ha, that's a good one. No Republican is going to give you one.
@JAM
Some of the "fundamental principles" that JAM didn't mention:
1. Protection of the environment from corporations
2. Protection of consumers from corporations
Modern corporations are now second only to nation states in their size and power. The government is the only thing standing between their interests and that of the people. Republicans have abandoned that role and now are almost entirely on the side of corporate greed.
@Scott Cole: What you define as "corporate creed" some of believe are corporate profits that benefit shareholder and employ middle class workers with benefits unavailing in the so-called "gig" economy.
1
Paul says: “For economic and demographic trends have interacted with political change to make the Senate deeply unrepresentative of American reality”
Paul has the wrong mechanisms here. The primary mechanism that is warping the Senate is control by a dubious handful of billionaires that run the GOP and a hugely successful propaganda machine that controls reality and politics for about 40% of voters.
5
I think Mr. Krugman's comments are right on. The Senate has become a club of grumpy old men with a few women who are largely out of touch with modern times. As to remaining faithful to the Constitution--the principles matter: representative government, basic human rights, government with checks and balances, to name a few, but procedural directives, such as how the country elects and appoints persons to the four highest offices (President, Senator, Representatives, and Justices), apportions representation, even how we define citizenship, need to be reviewed and updated to reflect the world we live in. That, however, will be a fight of daunting proportions.
8
Krugman nails it. Furthermore, I don't know why it isn't a good idea to update the Constitution every 50 years. The "party of business" should certainly appreciate this. Business plans are updated in 3 year arcs (forget about the 5 year plan, things are changing way faster than that now). So how about we start updating the country's business plan twice a century to ensure we align representative government with demographic and geographic trends.
6
The original constitution gave the senate to the states, not to the people (which are represented by the House).
Perhaps you need to rethink the amendment that changed this.
4
The problem is not that the Senate has too much power but that "Senate country" is suffering afflictions that are in part due to the flight to the coasts, the widening educational and health disparities, and the stagnation in parts of the economy that do not benefit from technological innovation, free trade and global integration. Residents of "Senate country" will continue to be vulnerable to ideologies that assure them of their superiority and worth despite coastal views of them as irrelevant and backward, as long as their fundamental situation continues to deprive them of a genuine sense of worth.
3
Fixing the Senate imbalance is a "long putt", but enacting the Electoral College Pact for Presidential elections (states declare their electors will support the winner of the national popular vote) is still possible. Already states representing 165 electors have committed. The President is the one elected official in the country who represents every American. It is only right that each persons vote for President should be equal.
7
Rural America controls the Senate, the Senate confirms the judiciary, and the courts shape the values that govern all Americans. A good deal for the minority.
7
@Tom Helm
I guess that is why Democrats love the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Progressives love the fact that the Court held ObamaCare to be Constitutional. Progressives love all of those progressive interpretations of the right to counsel, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court's limits on the death penalty, etc. A good deal for the minority, indeed.
2
Also a clear path to power for those who exploit the minority.
The “minority” is not rural America. It is a handful of dubious billionaires who have gained control of the minds of rural America using a hugely successful disinformation machine that controls their press, their TV, their radio, and their pulpits.
1
The institution of the Senate should add structural prudence to representative government. In Roman times Senators were elders. In the Medieval Europe they were landholding nobles. In principle the Senate should add deliberative ballast to steady the ship of state, but today its traditions are being exploited by Mitch McConnell for short-term partisan gain. At least a this point in human history real logic of the social contract says that a Senator’s function should be to represent the land itself to keep it for future generations. Instead it's just a stepping stone to exploitation.
I believe another factor is male-dominated society in America's rural areas, in particular. There, women have allowed themselves to go along with what they and, especially, their under-educated husbands elect to do. Until that changes, a majority of rural Americans are likely to continue to vote for racists like Trump.
3
@James Murphy
Wow. And you think there are no under-educated men in urban areas? Really?
Your focus on solving the rural problem is spot on.Much as I share your dislike for the result, what we are seeing is democracy working. The people in the middle of the country are mad, won't take it any more, and using the power that democracy gives them. It is now necessary for the rest of us to take heed and work to improve their situation.
It is true that when people get fed up they readily turn to blaming someone, and with Trump, Fox, Limbaugh and corrupt evangelical ministers they have the pimps to sell them targets. But outrage at their misplaced but natural reaction is itself misplaced. We need real solutions for them. The Republicans won't provide any; neither will God.
7
Since 2008, when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, with a super majority in the Senate, they have been consistently losing elections, not because of the electoral college, GOP lies, Fox News, Facebook, or the Russians, but because of Obamacare, the major achievement of the Obama administration, passed into law mainly through the efforts of the House Dem leadership, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Cliburn. The most hated part of this law, the Individual Mandate, was finally repealed by the illustrious Donald Trump and the GOP controlled Congress. Had they not done so, there is no way the Dems would have made any inroads at all in this last election.
Now, ten years later, the same band of bozos wants to reclaim their leadership of the House. Somehow this possibility has escaped your list of potential disasters looming over the Republic. Why?
2
I believe that the 2 senators per state rule was put into the Constitution to appease the slave states, who were worried that they wouldn't get enough representation in Congress. It's time to do away with it.
3
@Marilyn
The electoral college and 3/5ths compromise were give-aways to the slave states to boost their demographic numbers to near parity with non-slave states.
The 3/5ths compromise allowed slaves (who could never participate or benefit from the government for which they were counted) to boost the South's proportional representation giving them more representatives. Those additional congressmen gave them more electors in the electoral college, whose members were allotted based on the total number of congressmen per state.
the 3/5ths amendment because null and void in 1865. It's high time the electoral college, the last lingering and most enduring vestige of slavery is declared so.
1
@Marilyn
And for 100 years after slavery ended, those slave states consistently elected Democrats.
" because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants. "
That might carry some weight if places like NYC didn't live with their racially segregated school system.
It is apparently an enlightened mindset that enables the co-existence of whites, brown and black within a certain geographical boundary but also allows for thriving racial segregation in the school system. I think that qualifies as a peculiar institution.
But keep up the rhetoric Krugman, maybe no one will notice.
2
The battle we see is the old small state/large state compromise turned on its head. The electoral college and the congress were both set up to be not truly democratic, since the Senate was not based on population. Thus a large state like NY, with all its expected house members, could abuse a smaller state (like Vermont); but since Vermont had the same senators as NY, would be a balance. Likewise, with the electoral college, senators count heavily. Both were checks and balances against the excesses of democratic voting, along with the courts. Problems with this?
1)The EC was designed as a check, because electors could vote against the candidate they were pledged to, so a demagogue like Trump couldn't be elected. Since then the EC is still undemocratic, but by law electors cannot vote against the person they are pledged to, so it is not a check AND is undemocratic.
2)The Senate was not elected in the original version, they were appointed by governors or legislatures, with the idea that this would insulate it from popular stupidity. In the late 19th century, direct voting allowed what we have today, the Senate as non democratic as well.
So what was supposed to be protection from the majority, has turned into power for the minority. Like with the Supreme Court, this is likely to end badly, the runup to the civil war was predicated on such an imbalance, lot more slave states than free states, whereas the free states were much larger.
2
@bill d
Electors can indeed vote against whoever they are "pledged" to and have in the past done that. In United States presidential elections, a faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote. That is, they break faith with the candidate they were pledged to and vote for another candidate, or fail to vote. A pledged elector is only considered a faithless elector by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break.
I would add that before we can do this or anything else, we have first to escape from a Trump dictatorship and impending fascism. Trump, who this rural-dominated Senate is worshiping and bowing down to like Baal, and fascism, which this rural-dominated Senate is working hard to impose upon us, lest, God forbid, nonwhite people should be equal. Winning the House on Nov. 6 was a good start, but now we have to make sure those new Democrats actually take their seats. You can be sure the Repubs will try to stop that. Rick Scott is already calling voter fraud in Florida. Look for it from Trump and McConnell, too.
3
Someone suggested that the next Democratic president (in 2020 God willing) should make Puerto Rico and Washington DC states. Both deserve representation. Would shake up the Senate landscape.
2
Thanks very much for reiterating what most of us NYT readers have known for many years. Any clue on what to do about it?
The Senate becomes more anachronistic every year. Along with the electoral college. Unfortunately the advantage of this situation accrues to the Republicans and without their support there is no hope of changing it.
Only when Republicans stop looking at elections like football games, with winners and losers instead of right and wrong, will we be able to become a true representative democracy.
This year I voted for a man I deeply loathe, Robert Menendez. It troubled me greatly but when Republicans continue to re-elect loathesome characters like Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins I have to follow the same line. He may be a crook but he is our crook. That philosophy is the death knell of democracy.
Isn't it only ten years since there were 60 Democrats in the Senate and we passed Obamacare? How do we know that won't happen again in a few years? I'm not convinced yet that the Senate is irredeemably lost.
2
As a minority white male rural resident, who lives in New York State, I have more in common with the urban population than my rural neighbors. I live where I live by choice. I love the rural landscape, if not my neighbors. It's my opinion, but I don't believe they love the country...they are here to get away from the scary urban/suburban areas. They live in fear. Fear of anyone different than themselves.
I value diversity. That's why I love the rural landscape. My large front lawn, if you could call it a lawn, probably has a minimum of 100 different species of plants. Try that in suburban America. Monoculture of grass with anything else considered a weed. Ugly. But the grass on my lawn, what there is of it, doesn't get that tall. Too much competition from all the other plants. So, as for mowing the lawn...yeah, I do that. Once a year. Just to keep the trees and large shrubs from taking over.
I had Monarch butterflies all summer and they didn't leave until two weeks ago. Lot's of milkweed all over the place for them. And, as you can imagine, plenty of birds including wild turkeys, squirrels, deer, raccoons, a woodchuck under the back deck, a porcupine on the deck the other night...those are the neighbors I enjoy.
So, what is my solution to problems of rural America? Gentrification. People who understand and value all kinds of diversity moving out to the rural areas. More minority members living in lily white America. I'd certainly be happy to see them here.
4
Never has a parliamentary form of government looked more admirable.
3
Yes, it is amazing that New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and California's Diane Feinstein each received millions of votes, while Indiana's Mike Braun received a few hundred thousand votes, yet in the Senate they will all be effectively equal. Some have compared this to the Electoral College in its impact.
1
And yet, for all its *electoral* weight, rural America counts for squat when it comes to economic opportunity and social advancement.
And this is the real paradox: rural America theoretically could dictate the terms of its well being -- as for instance in France and Germany where the agricultural areas are rich and in better shape than many urban clusters.
Instead, rural America, where I live -- with two Master's degree and a PhD -- lacks cellular telephone service, lacks broadband, hospitals and clinics, child care and high quality public schools.
What we have is an abundance of drug-related crises, roads in disrepair, decrepit housing, meager wages and low income except for the landowners (like in India.)
Oh, I forgot "them" guns and "them" churches. We have a lot of those.
Backwardness (because that's what it is) is easily exploited by vulture politicians who promise that nothing must change so that everything can change for the better.
5
@farmer marx
I think you described New York City. New York City is closing hospitals and lacks high quality public schools for all but the lucky few who can get into the few high schools with entrance exams. Lots of drug-related problems in NYC. New York City's roads are laced with potholes, its housing stock for the masses is decrepit (see NYCHA) and wages and income are too low to live in NYC. Plus "them" guns and "them" churches in NYC.
My opinion is that the blue states need to collectively start playing nasty with these red states and start collectively withholding the tax revenue blue states are in charge of collecting for the federal government and then offer these Red States a deal. Us blue voters take New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, DC, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. Have the Chicago/Milwaukee area become our West Berlin. Forced migrations on both sides and then when these red areas become super poor and destitute, perhaps Trump voters will realize the error of their ways
1
There is a process for Constitutional Amendments.
Learn the process, engage it, embrace it and stop your hate divisive rhetoric.
The process has yielded such results as :
Abolishing Slavery
Establishing Citizenship
Establishing Equal protection
Establishing Due Process
Right to vote for those previously denied based on race or color
Changed election of Senators from appointments
Granted the right to vote to women
Changed the voting age to 18
Not a bad set of outcomes for a country to achieve over 240 years in the making. Some of these outcomes were the first for any country on the planet to achieve.
Surprising article coming from an educated person.
2
The Senate not only has power when the President's party is the same. It might have even more power when it's opposite, ruining all efforts from said President, like a bigger stimulus package for the economy or appointing a Supreme Court judge... Sounds familiar?
1
The political map of america today is the future of america. Fundamentally, the map shows a bi-coastal structure, being very blue on the coasts with an interior that is very red , in effect an Oreo cooky, blue on the outside and red on the inside. This map assures most senate seats will be easier for red state republicans to obtain and as the blue coasts are where the largest populations are located , they will get most of the democratic congressional seats .
This makes it easy to understand that when the red states rail against the establishment , they mean the blue coasts, where the powerful institutions such as finance , education, and government reside. The red center of america , the areas once having industrial power are turning to rust, Google locates on the coasts and thrives, while General Electric in the red center fades.
The passions of the blue coasts tend towards progressive idealism while the red center passions seem to be about survival . In such an atmosphere For Democrats to win senate seats it will be important to not demonize the red state concerns, but rather to find ways to address their growing sense of powerlessness and the real danger of creating two americas, one with power and money on the coasts and another at the center, poor and pessimistic...this is the formula for a divided house and for disaster that must be addressed ...america must always be ...one country!
To be representative, California would need 70 more Senators, because its population is 70x that of the smallest state, Wyoming. Or we could just send a chunk of California's population to go live in Wyoming, which isn't a bad place except in winter, but then you factor in global warming and it could be the next hot real estate market.
@nerdrage: "To be representative, California would need 70 more Senators, because its population is 70x that of the smallest state, Wyoming."
That's why you have the House of Representatives.
Hey, there is a lot of space in the sparsely populated states for millions of immigrants. Then perhaps the Senate would be more representative of the population.
2
"Real Americans," as opposed to the "Others," is the hallmark of right-wing nationalist/racist/religious bigotry. Dr. K. seems to believe that the left should also be able to define who is real and who is "The Other."
Americans have managed to live with the Electoral College for well over 200 years, but until the results went the "wrong" way it it was fine. It also was clear to the Framers that all Colonies were equal as states, regardless of size, so they had equal Senate representation. Otherwise, the smaller states would be ignored in elections and in legislation. That's the REAL America.
"a growing crisis of legitimacy"?
What a whiner! I thought it was President Trump who wanted to delegitimize our elections?
1
"600,000 people in Wyoming have the same power to pick federal judges as 40,000,000 people in California. A similar comparison can be made between Momtana and New York, The Dakotas and New Jersey, Idaho and Pennsylvania. "
This is exactly why our constitution and laws and government were created as they were.. It didn't matter if NY had 200k votes and Alabama had 10K votes. (hypothetical numbers).
Stick to economics.
1
Absolutely True! No way should North and South Dakota, RI , VT,MT ,Me and Alaska etc have more say in the Senate than Texas and California--their economies are bigger than Russia's! Ridiculous! Keep the electoral college and change the senate.
the president — who, let us not forget, lost the popular vote...
Let us hear more about the Electoral College and its stealing of the presidency, or call it what you will, its thorn in democracy, its origins in the slave system. A discussion is needed. This topic gets mentioned and kicked under the rug.
While the imbalance of power of this arrangement is repulsive, especially in the agenda it is being used to advance, in a sense it is working exactly as intended by the founders. Small states wanted protection from the larger states; and there was a need for a method of protecting minorities from the majority.
Who knew that the minority it would be protecting would turn out to be old white men driven by hate.
1
"None of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters." But, you spent the entire article doing exactly that. It is clear from the tone of your article that you believe racism thrives in rural white America. Your bold and broad brush inflames anger and racism as much as you may believe it educates.
2
When Obama had 60 Democratic senators in 2008 I didn't hear a lot of complaints in these pages.
3
"[T]he House — which despite gerrymandering and other factors is far more representative of the country as a whole than the Senate..."
Exactly. So what's the problem?
The U.S. is of course rather more centralised than in 1789 (possibly more so than its founding fathers anticipated, imagined, or desired). But the entire point of the Senate is to offset the House of - well - *Representatives*.
The issue with the Senate is its increasing reflection more generally of partisan political discourse and the modern-day reluctance of its members to engage in bipartisan co-operation. (Though fortunately nothing in federal politics has reached the heights of what happened to Charles Sumner. Yet.).
The issue isn't, that Wyoming gets as many senators as California.
If the media (most broadly construed) as well as politicians themselves, all did their jobs reasonably and properly, the 'unrepresentativeness' of the Senate wouldn't matter (as it isn't meant to matter). (The same argument goes for the electoral college, while we're at it).
And if Professor Krugman wants to rewrite about 1/3rd of the Constitution and remake in effect the country into a unitary state by abolishing the Senate, he's entitled to articulate that opinion. He ought just to say it.
One imagines a rather different piece being written had the Democratic Party regained control, or brought a 50-50 balance to the Senate, last Tuesday
Good article pointing out to me the continuing debate over the Constitution made worse in my estimation by Justice Scalia and those who follow the theory of originalism. How and why does a document written or confirmed in 1787 make sense as change must come, via amendments and new realities do and necessitate agreements made by the polity, judiciary, legislative and yes the executive branch. Joseph Ellis has a book out that details various presidential philosophies, and as any student of history and government knows, from Marshall to Hamilton to the current time, the debate over when to push for change, when to leave things well enough alone, or when to allow for example all citizens in the country to be counted as same--people of color, women people, and so forth--must evolve as well.
The voting evidence from here in rural Missouri is that voters would rather elect a Republican who is actively working to take away their health care protections than a Democrat who wants to protect the health and care of both black and white voters alike.
This is a wider, national phenomenon that Democrats need to recognize and deal with in its various forms.
Oh, please, liberals, read the constitution! The United States is not a simple democracy, it's a federation of states--there's such a thing as state sovereignty. The H. of R. represents the people directly, the Senate represents the states; their people only indirectly. What coastal liberals really want is to curtail the power of the states, in effect turning Middle America into a politically powerless territory ruled from New York and San Francisco, and, may I add, for their own benefit. To that same end they would like to change or eliminate the Electoral College. If you want a real secessionist crisis, a civil war if you like, there's exactly the place to start it; the place to light the fire.
71
It's not about liberals vs. conservatives. It is about the many flaws in the constitution.
The Senate has never represented "the states." It has always represented the richest and most powerful property owners in each state, from plantation slavers to today's agribusiness and commodities extraction industries.
The Senate has always been the enemy of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
It's time to light the fire and 1) eliminate the Electoral College and 2) eliminate the Senate, creating one House of Congress.
64
@Ronald B. Duke
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a bicameral legislature where pure democracy is tempered and one chamber reflects the electorate in one way and the other chamber in another. This kind of check and balance was presumably the original intention and made perfect sense. But when some of the voters who select one of these bodies end up with seventy times as much power as other voters the principle of check and balance is lost and the tyranny of the few replaces the democracy of the many. I think it’s clear that this is not what the Framers intended and certainly not what their consituents would have accepted. I’m sure that if they were here now they would expect us to modify the system to maintain the checks and balances but to more closely reflect the current reality. They would have been shocked and perplexed to see that we now tolerate a system of Rotten Boroughs that the British had already eliminated by the time they were drawing up the US Constitution!
34
@Ronald B. Duke
So, at what point would you ever consider it unfair? When a Wyoming voter has 100 times the influence on the federal government than a California voter? When its 1000 times? According to you, there is no limit to the disproportionationality - its all good.
35
Obama won big in '08 and '12 because the Dems had a 50-state strategy. They aren't going to vote for you if you don't talk to them. The problem is that the Dems are afraid to upset their donors by becoming once again the party of working people. The policies of the New Deal and Great Society remain broadly popular. Electrification of rural states won a lot of votes in the '30s. A Green Infrastructure bill could do likewise today. Let the GOP run on hate and xenophobia when the Dems/liberals start to offer jobs, healthcare and a real future for people. Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Republicans now. Dems can run on all kinds of programs that are popular with the 'conservatives,' not just independents and liberals.
Lastly, why is no one talking about how the GOP spending bill last year boosted the GDP? They used the same Keynsian economics that they malign to get an economic and electoral advantage.
2
I love the big picture analysis and Krugman is the perfect political economy analyst. But, getting back to the economy side of things, I believe there is hope. People do not vote in a vacuum. It's easy for rural voters to vote for hatred and division when they're buoyed by their more equal vote, tax breaks and subsidies but when you take way the farm bailouts and curtail their economic support from the federal government as democrats can now do with the power of the purse, rural voters will start to respond more to bread and butter issues that democrats favor and less to tribal hatred. So, no, we cannot fix our broken senate in the next two years but we certainly can influence how these less educated voters perceive how their best interests are served once the artificial supports are removed from their economy and therein lies the genius of the constitutional framers.
I now work exclusively from home. While I have no plans to move back to the states because of ties to family in Canada, I expect that part of the solution to this divide could be in more Hi Tech folks working from home in diverse locations. At some point the real estate differences entice us away from the most crowded and expensive markets to more rural ones.
Much as opening trade with less well of economies eventually decreases the most extreme divides, eventually the potential energy of real estate price differences may eventually lead to incentive to virtualize the office experience and cash in on the pastoral life providing more space, less expensive homes, and quiet.
Paul, have you ever thought about how about what your home might look like in Dallas? I'm sure if enough New Yorkers move to an area of Dallas, the Bagels and Slices will follow ...
I listened to a young black woman who won in a predominately rural district speak about how she was able to win her House seat. She said that she traveled all over the area and talked with the voters. The point she made was that they were so pleased to speak with her and that they hadn't spoken with a Democrat in the last 10 years. Barack Obama made the same point when he was encouraging Hillary Clinton to go out into these areas which she didn't do. President Obama stated at that time that this was how he was able to gain their vote. Beto made this same point in one of his speeches where he said that the people in the rural areas said how Franklin Roosevelt made sure that the people in the rural areas had electricity so that they would have the same advantages as the people in the cities and one of his election promises was to deliver broad band to these areas. He didn't win and he isn't a minority but he did come very close to winning in Texas.
1
Krugman is right about the differences between rural and urban areas--nothing new here. Such differences in matters of race, religion, gender, and nationality are significant, but their underlying conditions--ignorance from little or poor education and anti-intellectualism as an accelerant--are at least as important. The latter reinforce resistance to modernity, which emphasizes rationality, secularism, cosmopolitanism, innovation, and law. Precisely because of these factors, rural areas are at once attracted to their benefits and repelled by their costs to the desire for constancy and stability which makes rural areas conservative. (The tension appears most vividly in anti-Semitism, for Jews are the socio-political "canary in the cage" even absent a coal mine; anti-Semitism without Jews is not a joke, but an expressive distillation of these fears.) The primary political challenge confronting liberals of all stripes is how to address these basic fears founded in the nature of rural life.
1
“How do we explain those Senate losses?”
The simplest explanation is voter revulsion at the Kavanaugh-confirmation circus Senate Democrats staged. Many mothers, wives, daughters, aunts, nieces and girlfriends saw their loved ones in Brett Kavanaugh, and were horrified by the obvious injustice in what he was subjected to.
Add to them the voters who are inclined to believe that Dr Ford was assaulted (by someone) but are also troubled by the inherent potential for injustice demanded the Women Must Be Believed Merely Because They Accuse It movement. (To be clear: Accusers deserve to be heard. They deserved to be listened to. But they also deserve to have all the available evidence weighed, even that evidence — or lack of it — that weighs against the accusation.)
Occam’s Razor argues that the explanation that requires the least speculation is usually the best. One need not speculate about the simplest explanation: pollsters documented it.
It may be a little early to come to such judgments as Krugman's. We spent the last 8 years with the "more representative" House leading the reactionary charge. The Senate was the more moderate branch of the legislature for many of those years.
My own congressman, Erik Paulsen, 3rd District MN, was defeated this go-round, but the district hasn't changed so much as a Krugman analysis would suggest. Like North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, Paulsen's opponent, Dean Phillips, may be a one-off in this moderately conservative group of western suburbs of Minneapolis. Paulsen was in hiding the last couple years, and turned his back on Trump way too late to be credible. But whether Phillips has staying power, and other new Democrats winning in normally Republican districts, is still to be determined. Politics is never a straight-line proposition. It is more of a billiard ball reaction process to who's in power and what they're doing to solve the country's problems. And no party has a monopoly on wisdom, folly, or integrity.
While I agree with much of what you write Dr. Krugman, if you are suggesting a constitutional amendment to change this situation, how is that different from the Republican m.o. which is,
if you don’t like the outcome just change the rules?
The cause of the problems in middle America is poverty with no way out. Much of small town America has been devastated by lack of opportunity. People suffer from opioid addiction, low paying jobs or no jobs at all.
Before we get on the bandwagon to change the constitution why not first address the causes with major infrastructure jobs related to alternative energy, transportation and the new economy. And while we’re at it make sure they have excellent schools and healthcare. A big task, but more unifying than trying to change our Constitution.
I've heard the endless complaints about disproportionate representation but no one has a real solution. Many speak of amending the constitution. That is a fantasy that would require states to voluntarily cede power. It's difficult to find solutions when the opposition is based more on cultural values and tribal belief systems than policy. Democrats can make some headway by tendering policies that cater to these voters but history has shown that many of these voters will vote against self-interest to stay within the tribe. Perhaps Mr. Steyer and others willing to fund impeachment would be better off investing in local television and counter the Sinclair/Fox stranglehold. Every election we forget the non-urban/suburban part of the country is very large despite being a minority. We ignore them at our own peril.
The clear solution is to reform the electoral college system and make gerrymandering illegal.
1. Eliminate the all or nothing quirk with the electoral college. If you get 55% of the votes in state A, you get 55% of their electoral college delegates. This keeps the campaign for POTUS from being decided by the same five states every four years. Do Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsy and Fla really reflect the collective values of real America?
Next a simple algorithm could quite dispassionately draw up House of Rep boundary lines that fairly reflect the population of the state, and not just sculpted districts meant to protect political power.
Our current system was created back when only land owning white men had a say in how things were done. It is time for us to admit that, while clever, these men could not have foreseen how the system has been twisted to ensure that the minority could hold onto power.
3
@bobbybow: "1. Eliminate the all or nothing quirk with the electoral college. If you get 55% of the votes in state A, you get 55% of their electoral college delegates."
The "quirk" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Both Republicans and Democrats at the state level have made this law in 48 states. Want to see a change? Talk to your state political parties.
The immediate answer to this immediate problem is for the deepest blue (and most under-represented in the Senate) states to split -- something like the following:
New York => East New York, West New York, New York (NYC)
Massachusetts => West Massachusetts, Massachusetts
Illinois => Chicago, Illinois
California => North California, South California, California
Connecticut => North Connecticut, Connecticut
The effect would be to add 14 new seats to the 10 currently blue Senate seats from these states. I suspect that about 5 of the new seats would be red, so the new senate would end up with 5 new GOP and 9 new Democratic Senators.
I'll take those numbers.
2
@BrooklineTom
Split Texas into East Texas, the I-35/I-45 Corridor, and West Texas. They could share a collective nickname: The Blown Star State.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Absent a re-write of the Constitution, "The United States" seems doomed, inevitably so, to become an oxymoron permanently, not just a passing phase as we seem to (want) believe to be the case now, regardless of one's political allegiance.
1
The GOP has control of the geography/The Dems are favored by the population. You look at a map, and it seems entirely red, but with blue ink spots dribbled all over it...those blue spots are "the people" who have a diminished voice in comparison to the land mass that the GOP controls. Rural American is not getting much from their GOP vote however, they get to keep their guns, they have a President who riles up their prejudices against an other they rarely meet, their disdain for "Obamacare" has closed their hospitals and health care clinics, and abortion as well as family planning via birth control will be out of reach. The GOP and their beloved MAGA president has done very little to change the dissolution of rural America and small towns. But hey, they may get a distant wall someday (rather than infrastructure they could certainly use) to keep the brown hoards from overtaking their empty real estate.
3
Senators represent states while representatives represent residents of their congressional districts. The Constitution guarantees states equal suffrage in the Senate. Section 1 says “the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. Article 5, which describes the amendment process, provides that all parts of the Constitution may be altered by amendment except that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” Equal representation in the Senate is the Constitution's only inviolate provision. A state could consent to being allotted only one senator or no senators, but that would never happen. Calling for an end to equal suffrage in the Senate is the same as calling for the breakup of the United States.
1
Can we be done with the charade that this is one country yet? Maybe in 2020. Certainly by 2040.
I’d be up for a third party looking at how we can decouple peacefully into multiple countries that have similar economic and cultural outlooks, with an upshot that they will be capable of addressing and acting to solve political issues with a majority of the people’s approval
Maybe the pace and depth of this division continues to accelerate because one sides good governance is an economic or cultural disaster for the other.
1
As a numbers geek, I wanted to see how much of Professor Klugman's concerns are theoretical, vs. practical.
Using 2010 census data, and making the following assumptions:
1) Republican wins Senate race in Florida
2) Democrat wins race in Arizona
3) Republican wins Mississippi runoff
4) Independents in Maine and Vermont are considered Democrats
5) Each Senate seat represents 1/2 of the population of that State
I come up with the following: Senate 53 % Republican, 47% Democrat.
Based on population (see assumption 5), I was shocked to realize that the breakdown is as follows:
Republicans represent 45.65% of the population, Democrats, 54.35%.
In other words, 53% of the Senate represents 46% of the population and 47% of the Senate represents 54% of the population.
The Professor's analysis is practical.
1
You're right, but you're wrong. The "Great Compromise" of 1787. in which the Constitutional Convention gave the states of small population the same number of senators as those of large population was an essential political compromise to ensure the adoption of the proposed Constitution. (Along with, of course, the notorious three-fifths compromise) Back then, however, gross population mattered less than geographic extent or distance.
Well, the transportation revolutions since--the advent of railroads, automobiles, airplanes--have abolished the relevance of space as a defining basis of political organization. but the greater relevance of aggregate population does not have adequate expression in the framework of the federal government The solution to this anomaly is straightforward, even if revolutionary: get rid of the U.S. Senate. Take as a model for a reconstructed federal government, both Parliament in London and the Legislature in Lincoln, Nebraska. To put it another way, it seems that unicameralism facilitates or, more exactly, reflects change, whereas bicameralism doesn't.
Of course, for the entire United States to become truly united, a profound shift in self-conception is required. Changing how one thinks of oneself is very tough, but the current structure of the federal government is failing.
[The above are rather inchoate, half-formed musings on the
current political crisis. Let's talk with each other!]
1
The Senate is like the old British parliament, where "rotten boroughs" (places where most of the population had migrated to the cities) maintained great power, and the new industrial cities, like Birmingham and Manchester, had little or no representation. This was slowly fixed during the 19th century by various reform acts and the expansion of the franchise, but it took almost one hundred years to break the hold of the old House of Lords on progressive government in that country. Let's hope we can move a little quicker here.
2
This administration, using data harvested by Cambridge Analytica, FB and other sources, uncovered and exploited the painful truth. Life is hard when one is from a rural area and racism and fury can be byproducts. But personal motivation is a tool all can implement. The shabbiness that is trump is encouraging people to take what they want, either though violence or con artistry. And if you can't get it, cry 'unfair'. Because of reality tv, many people are lost to a world of selfies and jealousy and the self induced anger of not being famous or special. I pass the barns along the roads of New England, tilted and falling. I think of the generations of hard working Americans that are a favorite topic of politicians. Yet nothing has been done to shore up a system where the willing can make a life for themselves. This Senate cares not for the truth. It helps only the insider and sadly, those who need help the most, have been manipulated into voting for that very condition and have the votes to shoot themselves in the foot.
1
Here we see that the drawing of state lines has been the most consequential form of gerrymandering.
States have rights too. At the end of the day, California is 1 state and Idaho is 1 state too.
22
@Kohl
Yeah, who cares if a vote in Idaho counts 20X that of a vote in California. And who cares if that between the Electoral College, the Senate, and gerrymandering, the 40% minority of the country gets to call the shots for the 60% majority.
45
@Kohl
Why? We're a nation of people, not geographical units that were drawn long ago for a variety of reasons, in some cases for short-term political advantage. Nobody drawing a map now would give Wyoming and California equal representation.
345
@Paul Krugman
The United States is a Republic. As such, it is a nation of geographical units as framed by the Founding Fathers and the Senate is formulated explicitly to address this. It is also a nation of people and the House of Representatives is formulated to address this.
10
If Mr Krugman had his way, much if not most of the country would have no meaningful say in the management of the government...every election on a national basis would be decided by population concentration. Thankfully we have the Senate to act as a foil against this tyranny and the electoral college to provide a voice to those smaller or less populated states. As the population mix changes in Texas and Florida thus providing a more blue orientation, not everyone wants to see national elections decided only by NY, Calif., TX and FL.
20
@john b That's an inverted, albeit popular, view of the government. Folks from these less populated states want to run the government their way even though they have fewer needs and contribute less! Instead, why dont these folks find a way to become more vibrant centers which attract more people - thereby contributing more to America and thus justifying their need for a larger piece of the government
22
@john b
so you want the elections be decided by square yard instead of number of people? This is the point Dr. Krugman made in his article in case you did not get it.
24
@john b
Um, by most of the country you mean "most of the land area", right? Not most of the people. And I don't think even the Founding Fathers thought acres had votes.
245
It is a scandal that the main emphasis of the present administration is on the exertion and maintenance of Trump's power in particular and of the power of the Republican Party in general. Making sure a right-wing Trump supporter was the new Supreme Court judge was the target of the President's efforts for several weeks, and he has still to occupy himself with the USA's real problems, instead of conjuring up pictures of dangerous immigrants approaching the Mexican border.
I'm in complete sympathy with Krugman's politics, but I disagree with his views on the Senate. The framers of the Constitution set up the Senate and electoral college for a reason. If we only had proportional representation, the government would consider only the needs of the 10 largest states.
Krugman has described the inequality between the coasts and the places in between. Without the power of the Senate, that inequality would grow worse and worse without people in Washington needing to pay attention.
Red state politics is awful. The solution isn't to get around the Constitution but for the Democratic Party to offer a compelling alternative. They only need to persuade a few percent of voters to flip enough red states to win complete power.
29
@Choppy1
As I've been saying, I don't understand this fixation on representation of the states as opposed to the people who live in them. Why should the concerns of people in North Dakota matter so much more than those of people In California? And think about the people whose views really don't count: minority groups within states. There are millions of Democratic-voting people in Texas who have no voice in the Senate. Why is that OK, but reducing the role of Montana or Wyoming isn't?
198
@Paul Krugman: "As I've been saying, I don't understand this fixation on representation of the states as opposed to the people who live in them."
Because the Constitution was designed to fix the problems of the Articles of Confederation. One of those problems was with representation.
"Why should the concerns of people in North Dakota matter so much more than those of people In California?"
In the House, California does have more say than North Dakota. Why do you want California to have the same advantage in the Senate?
3
@Paul Krugman
The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral legislatural as a compromise to win the support of the less populated states with the Senate and the more populated states in the house. The problem seems to be the terms and powers of the House as opposed to the Senate. Although two year terms for Representatives and six-year terms for the Senators may have made sense at the time, perhaps this needs some rethinking. So too with the powers: the House initiates all fiscal legislation while the Senate effectively passes or blocks the President's judicial appointments. Is this still a good division of power?
2
I don't know. Democrats held the Senate numerous times over the years, most recently at the beginning of Obama's first term, and the population difference between states wasn't that different. Delaware or Rhode Island are also small states with small populations, yet 2 (Democratic) senators.
Overall I don't find it outrageous that one body would represent the land (the Senate), while the other (the House) represent the population. I actually find it more problematic that because of ridiculous gerrymandering the House is not truly representative of the popular vote. And of course, I believe the President should be elected by the popular vote as well.
Imagine if we pushed current trends to the extreme: several states in the "heartland" with, let's say, only a handful of inhabitants. Wouldn't we still want the geographical interests of these states (say use of resources, protection of the land, etc) represented in the political debate? (Again, the House and Presidency should be population-based).
@Alex What if we consider that the objective of giving equal representation to the states in the Senate was to force the US as a whole to "invest" in and develop the less populated states such that more and more people actually want to and end up living there? Unfortunately political and business leaders have not been successful in achieving that goal
In Krugman's America, the rights of minorities (not just people of color, but other minority groups) are subject to majority rule. In Krugman's America, the urban masses will totally ignore their fellow citizens in the relatively sparsely populated communities, resources will be devoted to the urban areas and the people outside of the urban areas will be politically and economically starved. In Krugman's America, we get no limits on majority rule, no control over how far the majority can go to destroy minority communities, and ultimately no ability to change the government from the inevitable one-party rule.
And that is the ultimate goal in Krugman's America: one party rule under the authority of oligarchs who claim to know better than everyone else. Dissent is viewed as racist or deplorable or crazy. Join the one-party and get your scraps, or live outside the party and get nothing. Examples abound, such as the Communist Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba and the big city Democratic Parties in America. One party rules, no challenge is possible.
1
The people most susceptible to the type of divisive hatred currently represented by racist white nationalism are those isolated by geographic, social, and economic factors. Their demands cannot be ignored. AND their tendencies to succumb to the unreasoning power of fear and resentment must be mitigated.
Given the disposition of the US Senate, any possible massive investments in the energy, transportation, and communications infrastructures must extend themselves (perhaps disproportionately) to rural areas. The same goes for our healthcare delivery and education infrastructures. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We are only as strong as our weakest links.
We need to get back to work with a focus on productivity and progress. That means investing in the real economy (people) and not casino capitalist speculative games.
3
Add more majority-minority states to the Senate as a counterweight to Senate America as soon as the Dems retake the White House and Congress. Making the following 6 territories (including the District of Columbia, even if not technically a territory) states requires only a statute. It would add 12 Senators not from Senate America:
DC
Puerto Rico
US Virgin Islands
Guam
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
Non-whites are the majority in all these territories. While the Northern Mariana Islands tend to vote Republican, they vote for the old Republican Party of Reagan. Trump will kill the GOP there. And if not, keep it a territory.
Adding 10, if not 12, Democratic Senators would give the Dems control of the Senate for the foreseeable future.
There perversion is worse than just the Senate and Presidency. Since they have the power to pack the Courts they have effectively created a tyranny of the minority.
The founders created the bill of rights to protect the States power not the peoples power. The objective was to create a Union. In order to do that they had to get States to join. The way they did that was they created a very weak Union that centered power in the States. The Union they created was so weak that the result was a terrible Civil War.
The adjustments made after the Civil War was incremental and not enough to prevent the next Civil War. If we continue to have a minority make the rules a majority has to live with the principles of democracy no longer apply. The end result will be either a peaceful adjustment of our government through amendment or another Civil War.
I am to the left of most Dems and view the iteration of the Republican Party that has formed and evolved since 1980 as essentially a crime family. That said, I don't agree with Krugman at least as to the Senate. First, the Senate was set up as a check against the potential tyranny of the majority and the House was set up as a check against the potential tyranny of a minority. Moreover, two Senate seats were lost by Dems in Florida and Texas , the second and third largest states. By Krugman's logic, Dems should be winning in those states irrespective of their lingering Deep South heritage. In fact, the Deep South heritage is the decisive factor. We have been and remain two countries since 1860 and unless this changes, which I don't foresee, our extreme political divide and national decline under figures like Trump, Bush II, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rick Scott, and I could go on, will continue. The genius of the Republicans has been their ability to spread the Deep South heritage beyond the former slave owning states at the the time of the Civil War.
1
From the perspective of a US citizen from Europe, our political system always looked grotesquely undemocratic. The mind-boggling inequity of the Senate and the naked perversion of gerrymandering can seem normal only to those who grew up with them and take them for granted.
Tyranny of the few over the many, in whatever form, is what precipitates revolutions and breakups of countries and nations. I see the US perilously close to the fragmentation point.
1
Profound issue. But, as a nation, we are politically incapable of dealing with profound issues, eg. at the top of the list, global warming..
I did some numbers doodling. The bottom 25 states, population wise, have in total 12% of the population, and 50% of the senate seats.
There are quite a few Deep States that distort and corrupt our supposedly representative democracy.
Some examples would be the white male deep state, the administrative bureaucracy deep state, the corporate lobbyist deep state, the Wall Street Big Bank deep state, and the military-industrial complex deep state.
We also have the Rural Deep State, structurally entrenched in the bones of our democracy.
2
those states have fewer people and more vacant land so that it is possible to provide meat and vegetables and grains for your table, wool and cotton for your clothes, fuel for your cars and home and minerals for everything else. the highly populated states have the H of R to look after their interests . don't be greedy.
Lest we forget - the House controls the purse strings, and cutting off subsidies to that white open spaces minority should impact their voting habits considerably.
The time has come to do something about the archaic, undemocratic senatorial structure and the electoral college too, while they're at it.
We've got senators that have a few hundred people in their states for god sakes.
1
@JayK
While we're at it we should also fix the massive over-representation by old people.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC will not solve the problem but it would help mitigate it. That would add four U.S. Senators to the mix, and even more importantly millions of disenfranchised Americans would have their voices heard in Washington, D.C.
Direct elections of Senators was not part of the Framer's constitution. It was added in the 17th Amendment.
With the Supreme Court and the senate locked up for the foreseeable future Trump (with FOX as his propaganda arm) has checkmated the country and there is nothing the democrats will be able to do to stop him. And that includes shutting out the press, enacting extreme voter suppression and probably prosecuting democratic opponents.
We Urban Blues are going to have to find new ways to express power. We are the majority. We are the people who actually work the technology of modern America. We need to have something like a general strike to show corporate America that fascism is not in their interest.
I started to write a comment the other day that sometimes it's just time for divorce. For the good of both people. I didn't post it because I didn't want to contribute that. I'd welcome an alternative. Amendments will also be controlled by the empty states. The difference from the old noble/serf model is that it's now the uneducated, incurious who hold the reigns of power. And they're easily manipulated by the owners of the empty state political machinery.
Too bad there is zilch anyone can do about the rural white power of the Senate. Obviously, the only way to change things would be to re-write the Constitution, and with rural dominance among the states and the Senate, there's no way the rural states are going to commit political suicide over "fairness." Urbanites of the Rainbow
Coalition will just be stuck with Wyoming having as much Senate power as CA for the duration. It might actually be healthy, in a way, for urbanites of the Coalition to have to pay more attention to dialoguing and compromising with rural folks. After all, Coalition types have been claiming we should be humanely sensitive to the needs of minorities for generations. Now it's time for urban liberals to be sensitive to that new American minority: white rural Christian conservatives.
We need to remember that when the Founding Fathers set up our Government that they were all rich, white men., most slave owners. While they did not want a Monarchy, because they had to share their wealth with the King, they certainly did not want ordinary citizens having many rights either.
They were not the Patriotic and compassionate men as they have portrayed through Historians eyes.
That said, they did do some brilliant things because it was in their enlightened best interest. There is nothing like enlightened self-interest.
Now if only the rest of us voted that way.
1
If new states are formed where population density is highest, we'd have a fairer representation without doing away with the current bicameral legislature. DC is one, Manhattan another, LA, Houston, Chicago, Boston, etc. Maybe we'd add about 10-20 senators. Voila. Problem Solved.
1
We have heard Californians suggesting that the state divide into two, as the north feels dominated politically by the south and the south sees the north as leeching of its economic advancement.
Dr Krugman states the problem eloquently, but uncharacteristically leaves the solution unstated. The Dems have to find something to sell to the rural, white America so they buy them rather than buying into the fears that Trump's GOP sells them. The solution is not too hard if you actually want to carry these "deplorables" along - the rich folks in the metro areas have to "adopt" their poor cousins in the countryside and lift them and their economic prospects. Sell them some hope for the future that you are capable of delivering on
We're becoming Iraq, a country where a Sunni minority held power over a Shia majority.
It won't end well.
And it has such broad implications for the rest of the world, not only us here. Our problems are planetary in scope and our leaders here still subscribe to Bronze age religious texts for guidance, support and confirmation. How will the Democrats ever convince rural White America that policies, from the economy to the environment, have to be based on scientific principles when the other side soothes them with comforting drivel?
Vermont, slightly more populous than Wyoming has two Democratic senators. The country is a Federation of States (United States of America). Vermont like Wyoming will never accept to change it's representation in the Senate.
Time to change the constitution : One republic with various districts (?).
“The Last Picture Show” was an early 1970’s movie about a dying Texas town. Fast forward 40-years and this movie has played out across rural America where their bright young don’t want too hang around to inherit a dingy pool hall or marry one of the slim pickings from high school. They head to the coasts and large metropolitan areas to live fuller lives.
@Prunella Arnold What is true about the "dying Texas town" does not have to be true about Wyoming or Iowa or Vermont or Delaware. Political and business leaders have failed over the past 50-100-200 years to develop these states, and unfortunately the Senators from these states have not been focused on developing these states into places where people can "live fuller lives"
The Senate and ALL of Congress have always been illegitimate. The American system of government was pre-ordained to be a dysfunctional failing entity.
As long as we continue to perpetrate this farce, America --The United States of-- will be a faux, fake and miserably failed nation. The "United States" is simply a misguided land mass on the North American Continent.
American governance and the American Government need to be demolished and its ashes buried deeply beneath the swamps of Washington, D. C. A totally new system and its infrastructure and structure must be initiated and built as "Government City" in the middle of the middle of The United States. This would eliminate the coastal biases of the nation. Legitimate power would stem and radiate from a balanced and truly representative center.
In the meantime The United States of America is just a waste of a nation.
1
Dr. Krugman:
What can we expect of a Constitution "made by slaves owners in a rural economy"?
What happens is the natural result of that contortion created by the "Owners of slaves founder fathers"... An electoral college that nobody votes for its members, blatant discrimination to the populated states, favoring those who live "the idiocy of rural live", which of course are white, and few, dictating over the Enlighted many; the educated inhabitants in the cities.
Somebody said "Hope is not a strategy", well, we do not hope neither strategy to change this bad scenario, as for every Constitutional change it is required an un reachable 2/3 of the votes, then the majority of the states. That's Dante's Inferno.
Obama lost 63 in Congress and gained 6 in the senate, Trump lost 23 in Congress and gained 4 in the senate. I wonder what your opinion was of that statistic!
1
Canada has a senate that might be a model for the US. Our senate has no real power but rather is a place for political has beens and party flunkies to go to when their best before date has passed. We'd like to get rid of them but it does serve a purpose - it keeps those in power from too blatantly enriching themselves as they have a comfy final resting place to look forward to. What do you think, eh?
1
I don't see a way out of our current state of minority rule. Our courts will be a rubber stamp for all kinds of regressive behavior and we will lose faith in that institution. Voter suppression is in plain view. Each cabinet has been sold out to the industries that can make a buck from it. I think we will become like Russia; many people who go on about their day and try to quietly live their lives, while corruption grows and and rule of law diminishes. But I don't see how a state like California or my state will ever outlaw gay marriage or abortion. I also don't see the government allowing any blue states to secede. I think the Capitalist faux-Libertarians bankrolling the GOP, dazzled by their wins, have become gangsters on a bender.
The percentage of our population that is non-Hispanic White is down to 60%. The set of all children born in the U.S., now and since 2015, are majority minority. The reality is that we are a diverse nation, not one that just aspires to be one. "Real America" is, in fact, a diverse population living in urban and suburban areas.
By all means, let us get rid of the checks and balances built into the constitution, and have all of America governed to excess like NY and CA. And you say rural America is insular.
1
@LTJ
75% of Utahns live in the Greater Salt Lake Metro area between North Ogden and Spanish Fork. Although Utah is sparsely populated, the folks who do live there are mostly packed tightly into a fairly urban area (same thing with Nevadans). Time for most Utahns to quit pretending that we're rural.
1
Professor Krugman, as a Nobel Prize winning economist knows the perils of a study of n=1. A casual perusal and analysis of the 10 least populous states (WY, VT, AK,ND, SD, DEL, MT, RI, ME, and NH—source 2016 census est. US Census Bureau) correlated with political affiliation (source: Senate.gov) prior to November 6 reveals 9 Republican, 9 Democrat, and 2 Independent senators. Post November 6 ND flipped to Democrat, Alaska is still a toss up with Sinema the Democrat ahead to flip to Democrat.
Should Sinema be declared winner, totals will be exactly the same (source: Politico. Com as of 7 AM 11/9) and, although a tie, Independents usually vote with Democrats and thus are ahead for the bottom 20% of states by population. Add my home state of NH as number 11 and the numbers are 9 R, 11D and 2 Indep.
1
The good news is, these rural, white voters are aging.
Their children are leaving the rural lifestyle for more opportunity in urban areas. I've seen it happening in my part of Texas for a more than a generation.
Couple that with the increasing diversity of America, within 30 years - maybe less - the power of these rural, white voters will be greatly diluted.
It can't happen soon enough for me. The GOP is dead: they just don't know it yet.
There are so many things wrong with America, Lobbying (Legalized bribery), the Imperial Presidency, Freedom of the airways to propagandize (Fox), Money is speech, and the last thing I will mention but not the least, a politicized Court system.
A counterbalance to the fundamentally unequal distribution of Senators had been the traditional role of the Senate as a deliberative body where the minority opinion is respected but the majority opinion holds and the longer tenure promotes collaboration. The real problem right now is that the Senate has lost its way and become just another version of the House, polarized so that all but a couple of members' votes are already locked in on any issue. If they would go back to being the cooling saucer, the inequality could be tolerated.
1
"Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism, which is always part of that cocktail."
White nationalism must be countered with reason, if that is possible, and with job opportunities. Yes I know that might sound absurd but the fear on the part of the white, underprivileged largely male populace of immigrants, of the "brown" people is misplaced. Education is the key, something which we must strengthen whether it be in vocational training, or semi-skilled labor education. But we must do something about the anger which this part of our population feels. It is misplaced and dangerous. How do we do that? That is the big question.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Paul, but that was the point. States are sovereign territories too. You are assuming that all policy has to originate at the federal level, when the structure of the U.S., at least as it was intended, was for a limited federal government with robust state governments. Those sovereign states and treated equally and fairly in the Senate. The Senate was never meant to track population, and is now serving it's purpose as a bulwark against the big cities dominating everyone else. As a conservative, I am extremely thankful for this structure, which to me, is the best protector of minority rights that we have. Go fight for your liberal policy goals in the New York and California state legislatures, but leave the other states for the rest of us (including born New Yorkers!) to escape to when we get sick of high taxes (i.e. Florida).
The main reason this issue is so important to Krugman and other liberals is that whether it's on taxes, abortion, or most any issue, they want to force the rest of us to pay up and be forced under their ideals. Yes, there are some issues that are best done at the federal level, such as immigration and climate policy, but the vast majority of contentious ones can be dealt with locally. Want single payer? Call your state senator and good luck to you.
1
To what extent are these rural areas "information deserts?" In other words, if we mapped the areas of our country with poor broadband access and poor access to non-partisan news coverage--as opposed to Fox News or TV stations owned by the biased Sinclair News Group--how much of that map would coincide with the rural districts that seem lost to the Democratic party? If these two maps do coincide, could it become a Democratic goal to provide better broadband and news access? Couldn't we challenge the dominance of the Sinclair New Group?
39
@Anne Anne- As a fairly left of center progressive, living in rural Michigan, i can tell you my experience is that providing exposure and increased access to a wider band of "facts" and perspective will likely have no effect.
The tRump backing-gun toting denizens are emotionally invested in their us vs. them stance. They applaud "alternative facts," and wish for a wall between them and the urban core.
16
I live in one of those rural areas. I have internet and subscribe to NY Times and Washington Post electronically and to the Economist in print. I can choose between MSNBC and Fox every morning and listen to All Things Considered every evening. I even get the Wall Street Journal every day. Am I in an "information desert?"
Democrats: Here's the deal. You probably want to stop looking down on the people in the middle of the country. It's the 21st century and you would be amazed at what goes on outside your geographic fringes.
127
@Anne Exactly what i was going to say. My mother lives in NH and has basic cable, which includes Fox but not MSNBC. She is a liberal, does not watch Fox,. But how many in her situation rely on the Fox propaganda machine? In the waiting rooms at the medical center in Bangor, ME, it is on all the time. Truly a parallel universe with its own alternate facts.
14
The Senate is what gives small states equal representation in government, but the House is where substantial governance should reside. The House should approve judicial and administrative nominees, treaties, etc. The Senate, as Krugman illuminates, flips democracy toward minority control, something even Federalists like James Madison opposed when he wrote John Calhoun in 1833 "that the rejection of majority rule will lead to anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy or aristocracy."
Madison and other Federalists didn't believe a bill of rights was necessary until it was obvious Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry and others would scuttle our new government without the rights. Jefferson wrote Madison a bill of rights puts a "legal check into the hands of the judiciary....Tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present. That of the executive will come in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period. We were educated in royalism; no wonder if some of us retain that idolatry still."
Trump admires monarchs and tyrants, so Jefferson's warning about a remote period has arrived. Trump's acting attorney general believes the courts are an inferior branch. Whitaker and modern Federalists don't believe people need a "legal check in the hands of the judiciary" to protect our liberty, especially from the Senate. It's no wonder radicals who favor oligarchy want to stack the courts with those who favor legislative tyranny, oligarchs, and our modern aristocracy.
One aspect of this present situation I don't understand: How many Senators representing rural areas truly have any rural bones in their body? They are generally "elite", with education and money. Mitch McConnell, who "represents" me, comes home to Louisville- a beautiful blue dot in a red sea, and promotes very little that I can see as good for anyone.
I agree with Dr. Krugman's analysis. But let's turn the analysis around and look at it from a different perspective. If the Dems do it right they should control the House and the Presidency into the foreseeable future. First, they need to capture enough state houses and governorships in 2018 and 2020 that they can eliminate the gerry mandering that has been keeping the Repubs in control of the House. Second, a good Presidential candidate who concentrates on a few Midwestern states should pretty much insure the Dems win the Presidency.
Two other actions would pretty insure the Repubs would gradually dwindle in importance. Get rid of the Senate filibuster. It is a legislative tool from a bygone era that has no rationale in today's polarized political environment. The other action is to start working on a constitutional amendment for the direct election of President. In other words, eliminate the Electoral college. The Seventeenth Amendment allowed for the direct election of Senators. Now it is time for the direct election of the President.
Mr. Krugman, I agree with the main thrust of your article, and with most of your articles.
But please, you can’t spend the first third of your article repeatedly saying things like “real America is mainly metropolitan; Senate America is still largely rural” and then expect conservative readers to be sympathetic to your backtracking claim that “none of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters,” or indeed to be sympathetic to the rest of your article.
I well remember how insulted I felt, as an Atlanta suburbanite Democrat, all through the Trump campaign, by the MAGA crowd’s claim of themselves being the “real Americans.” It is a divisive term no matter who uses it.
In the interest of helping restore respectful dialogue in this country, please be cautious about using that phrase. In fact, please don’t use it at all.
1
"We’re all Americans, and we all deserve an equal voice in shaping our national destiny."
Exactly - though many of us seem to have a hard time remembering this. This column resonated with me - I'm quite firmly a Metropolitan. I grew up in one large city, went to another to attend a (fancy private) college, then relocated to a third as an adult. I am liberal. I am Jewish. I have a relatively cushy desk job at a big corporation that produces goods overseas. And I am EXTREMELY tired of being told I am not a 'real American' because I don't live in a small town, or because I don't go to church on Sunday, or because I don't own a gun and don't care to. I have family that went west in covered wagons, worked on the railroad and in garment factories, and fought in World War II. I attended public schools, I pay taxes (a LOT of taxes), and I vote. We must insist on being counted - fairly. We must not let the minority define who gets to be American.
1
@RCP
Well stated - This urban working class woman thanks you!
Very illuminating article. In their 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels called for industrial plants to be located in rural areas so as to bring rural populations into the industrial economy and bridge a widening cultural divide. How do we go about populating "Senate" America with citizens who throw block parties, pool resources to create public playgrounds, organize recycling and composting centers, champion bicycle paths and generally embrace diversity and cooperation? Maybe our woke youth, who massively reject everything that Trump embodies, is our best hope.
I purpose that crisis of legitimacy for the political system in the US is already here in full force. What is growing is the understanding of how corrupt and non-representative our government really is.
By design our representation is not proportional and unless we can fundamentally change our form of government I doubt that it ever will be. Many of us see how democracy is broken in the US but what most of us lack is a clear understanding of a path to fixing this.
We have a president elected by a minority sustained by a senate elected by a minority of citizens. These two are placing into the courts judges that represent a minority of opinions. We cannot change the structure of our government, but maybe, in the future, we can have the House be part of the nomination process. The Founders saw the House as the true representatives of the people, and it is only just that they participate in a process that deeply affects our lives.
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for presenting information about the relationship between rural and metropolitan populations and their corresponding political leanings. These correspondences suggest an overlap between political understandings and theories of cognitive development. More specifically, in diverse populations, are individuals more able to see multiple perspectives and to look AT the lens through which they see rather than merely seeing through that lens with little awareness of its particularity? As a result, those who live in homogeneous cultural groups may lack the capacity to understand themselves and people from other cultures. Which kind of population is truly American? In my view, the House and not the Senate, represents what is truly American not only in relation to the makeup of populations but also in relation to individual cognitive development.
The way the Senate voting works, it is Constitutionally guaranteed gerrymandering, in its results. What is ironic is that these same frontier states believe they are self-sufficient, when the reality is that federal dollars flow from blue to red (frontier) states. As someone who worked in the melting pot of NYC for more than two decades, I learned that the 'others' are not people to fear. They have the same goals as everyone else, which is to be part of the great American dream.
1
Thanks Paul, but we know all this. It has been obvious for decades that the Senate is a regressive bunch of people representing only money. “The chief business of the American people is business.” So said Calvin Coolidge and, take away the sugar coating , so says every single person in this administration and Senate. Please tell us something new.
Thats the deal that was made under the New Jersey plan, and it’s still working for the smaller states. No way out of it.
I think it is fair to make the point that while the mathematics of your argument are exactly correct, another solution is to explore ways to make the "red states" less fearful and more tolerant of diversity and "the other". It might be the harder approach but might also be the more sustainable approach when we consider that we want a country that endures.
Though I agree entirely that in a democracy the minority should not rule the majority, the problem is not entirely how you are labeling it. In fact you are inadvertently exacerbating the problem with your framing.
The fact is right wing media has targeted their message of distrust to those that live outside of cities painting urban areas as hotbeds of violence and immorality and superiority. The republicans capitalize on this cultivated resentment to solidify their hold on these peoples' lives, painting democrats in all sorts of questionable colors. There are many people who hate liberals with a blind passion that can't be easily diffused.
The effort must be made to convince the deep red areas that liberals are not the enemy, that they don't look down on rural areas, and, in fact, respect what they do. Liberals are not about taking away their rights or their way of life but are just fighting for others to get a chance at what anyone should have which does not take anything away from them.
The reality of the Senate is, in fact, forcing the US to find a better path if we are to survive as a country. The left can't simply overwhelm the government by sheer numbers, but the right shouldn't force their agenda by demographic gamesmanship. My prescription: hobble right wing media that spreads resentment, make the presidential race solely popular vote, and find a constitutional argument which restores filibuster rules to find compromise in the Senate.
3
The urbanization trend at the national level is also a trend at the state and county levels. Even the so-called Red States have a substantial Blue component, which is why Congressional districts often have such peculiar shapes: they have been gerrymandered to favor one party or the other at the district level. (To be fair, the Gerrymander was named after a Democratic legislator in 19th century New York state, then controlled by Tammany Hall associates.)
The point is, nothing in the fabric of the electoral system is going to change in the next two years, but Democrats came close to defeating Ted Cruz in Texas and the Florida Senate race is still a toss-up. We can win the Senate both there and elsewhere if we keep trying, and if we believe that we can win!
Here is my two cents worth: As the climate grows more and more hostile, many of our largest cities will become more or less unihabitable. There is plenty of space to move inland though the costs and both social and economic would be astronomical. This would have the hidden advantage of re-writing the electoral map. Maybe a forced meeting of city and country people would be good for our national discourse. Though perhaps one should make sure it is "check your guns at the door" for those town hall meetings.
There is nothing that Democrats or Republicans can do to rejuvenate rural areas, including smaller rust belt cities. Both parties are subservient and beholden to big money. Big money is in or near big cities, and/or they have moved production overseas.
While it is true there is a great divide in America along urban and rural areas, if politicians were even remotely honest, they would need to admit that there is no way to economically revitalize rural areas.
Republicans were not interested in improving anyone's lives but their wealthy donors and they pursued power over the good of the country.
Republicans looked at rural areas as a way to leverage their power in the face of a shrinking white nationalist base. They did the math 30+ years ago and figured out what Krugman is sharing today in his op-ed. Their strategy was to create division and promote fear which implicitly pandered to white rural communities. Guns, religion, racism, and xenophobia were easy to target. They saw a way to divide and conquer when the numbers were against them.
The underlying dynamic of rural vs. urban is economic opportunity. It has led to an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality and pitted the haves against the havenots.
1
As the name suggests, the United States was founded as a Union of Independent States. It was not, as most nations are, one nation divided into states or provinces. The result for us today is the Senate and the Electoral College. For good or bad this is how the country was set up. The country is now large and diverse enough that we are testing the limits of the Union in a way that has not been done since the Civil War.
As Lincoln said at Gettysburg:
... a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. ...
In this smallish North Carolina city we elected Democratic leaders for our city and county counsels so things are changing as demographics and an influx of more city oriented people move into town. It is welcome at least from the stand point of a new immigrant.
But still we have the highest rate of per capita opioid addiction in the country which also is reflected throughout much of rural America. Those from those areas like to blame the loss of rural power and cities for this predicament. But the loss of viable good paying jobs and the decline of small farms and the culture they created contribute to a decline of moral in rural and small town America.
It is easy to blame others such as cities and immigrants for your problems, but until the finger pointing stops and people in small town America begin to take on and reconcile themselves to changing times, they will fail to address ennui that drives many of them to opioids, sometimes violence to the Republican Party which like them acts as the Party of blame.
1
Was the Senate not conceived as a more independent, deliberative body that was supposed to carefully consider the ramification of the decisions they were pondering. In that context, the equal representation of each state might have made sense so as to give the small states a reasonably powerful voice in the Senate.
However, with the emergence of extreme partisanship, the flow of huge sums of money, the elimination of the filibuster converted the Senate to a smaller version of the House.
Either equal or proportional representation for the Senate may work but only with the appropriate institutional rules and tools intact. The current Senate is no longer the Senate of the 20 years ago, let alone be the Senate of the period of the founders.
2
Not so fast Paul. Krysten Sinema seems poised to flip a Republican seat in Arizona (yes,deep red Arizona) to the Democrats and Bill Nelson is within striking distance of retaining his seat in Florida. That would mean that the Senate stays where it was with Republicans holding onto a razor-thin 51-49 margin. Given how unfavorable the electoral map was for Democrats in the Senate, this would be a truly remarkable achievement and the hand-writing would be on the wall for 2020. It's also possible (yes, I'm an optimist) that some Republicans in the Senate will finally wake up and realize that the grip that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have on them is, in reality, a death grip.
3
@Paul Wortman
You may be right, Paul, we shall see very soon.
If I lived RI, I would feel the same way. Enough said!
However the Senate is basically just another undemocratic institution just like EC and the gross gerrymandering that is perverting the voting for the House.
The US at the federal level, may become a real democracy one day. One can only hope!
In the past the small states were willing to go along with the big states agenda by being bought off. There was pork barrel stuff that was given to them out of proportion to size and their senator could report back that even if he went along with stuff he did not like his state got more than its fair share. What happened to this bargain? Corporations bought their Senator and representatives and took the goodies for themselves and left the small states population poorer for the experience along with the rest of the country.
1
Civics 101: our nation is a compact of equal sovereign states. Without this 'great compromise' there would be no USA. That's the way it's been from Day 1. Stop wasting our time with vague pleas for more 'democracy' . No state will surrender its power to significantly control its fate by reducing its equality in the Senate.
Civics 101: The Trump GOP are a minority regime. In 2016, Trump was not picked by voters. They wanted Clinton by a margin of almost 3 million. This year, by a margin of about 11 million, Americans picked Democrats to run the Senate, yet they lost seats. In the House, of course, the will of the people prevailed: they voted for a Democratic House and are getting it.
Minority rule is corrosive to our country. We don’t want Trump. We don’t want a GOP Senate. It needs to stop.
1
Part of the problem we have in America is people who are unwilling to think past their own borders so to speak. Our politicians exacerbate that tendency when they campaign and when they decide not to support proposed laws that they don't like or that may have an adverse effect on their constituents. However, in the last 15 to 20 years it has become quite clear who their true constituents are and it's not the people who elected them. It's the donor class that is listened to.
There are many Americas in this country but the one that has the upper hand isn't rural or metropolitan. It's rich. The more our senators and representatives and local governments give to them the more they want. Our needs are shoved to the back of the line, not once but every time. The GOP can put it in racial terms, religious terms, or use immigrants of any kind as an excuse but someone ought to write about their hypocrisy with respect to representing the average American rather than stating it as the GOP versus the Democrats or the rich versus the rest of us. There are choices that can be made or unmade (Citizens United for one) to prevent this fracturing. One choice is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Another is shortening the campaign season and free air time for the ads (with limits on the ads).
Governing in America is not about running the country any longer. It's a constant campaign and that is killing the country.
5
Agreed on all points, Dr. Krugman. I'd just like to provide the supplemental info that over 12 million more people voted for Democratic Senate candidates than for Republicans (!). That is roughly equivalent to the populations of Alabama, Arkansas, two (2) Wyomings, North Dakota and two Montanas (all ruby red states) COMBINED. Then consider how Republicans customarily act as if they come in with a sweeping mandate, no matter how tiny and/or non-majoritarian their victory was. Finally, there's Trump & Co., who pretend or believe that they in fact WON the popular vote, despite all evidence being to the contrary. How long is this sustainable?
2
Our family spent a lot of time in rural California when I was young, and I don’t think there was such a big divide. Maybe it was because Roosevelt saved the farmers during the Depression. Or because farmers owned and worked their own land back then.
Things might improve if more of the people who actually work the land these days are given citizenship. Our current economy where citizens are either rich, have cushy jobs, or are in grad school, and non-citizens work horrible jobs at low pay, reminds me of ancient Greece or Rome.
2
The hard truth: the fact that the Senate over-represents people in small, rural states means the Democrats need to appeal to the center and slightly right-of-center. Many comments here provide illuminating constitutional history, lament the unfairness of it all, or propose pie-in-the-sky constitutional reforms that may, one-day, take place. I don't see much thought given to an effective short- and medium-term strategy, as uncomfortable as that may be.
2
I guess it is unrealistic to assume there will ever be a change to the system of 2 senators per state but here is a simple formula that would make it fairer. On average, there are about 3.5 million people for each senator. So, one allocation option could be every state below 2 million will have 1 senator; every one between 2 and 7 million will have 2; every state between 7 and 14 will have 3 and finally every state above 14 million inhabitants will have 4 senators. I haven't done the math but these brackets could be chosen such that they add up to 100.
3
There is nothing constitutionally inviolate about the borders of states admitted after the original 13. Congress creates territories and admits them as states. Congress can redraw state boundaries. It needs only to insist on a minimum population to maintain statehood. Let's say a million. States below that threshold would be obliged to merge with an adjoining state.
2
In addition to term limit, I do see another alternative to this problem. If the state residents permit, each bigger states like California, Texas and Florida can be divided into several (three or more) smaller states. Then, each smaller state like Rhode Island etc. can still have two senators representing the population, thus balancing the imbalance in senatorial representation. Would that be a good solution?
It is also the urban/suburban majority that pays the tax bill that supports the governments. In that sense, they are doubly underrepresented.
2
Down the road this is going to become an increasingly sore issue as a minority seek to impose their economic and social views on the majority. In a democracy one vote is supposed to have one value. The senate conspicuously does not. Half of Americans live in 10 states and the other half live in 40 states. Thus 20 Senators represent half the population and 80 Senators represent the other half. And it doesn't cut all one way in political terms either. The two most populous states are CA and TX, the two least populous VT and WY.
2
Krugman, I believe, is right. His view needs to be read. But, a constitutional amendment over this inequality is most difficult to achieve. Meanwhile, the Senate remains a haven for wealthy white politicians and red state unequal representation, The blue wave affected mostly states with some large urban center(s). I think of Arizona, and even Utah and Kansas but not the Dakotas and Wyoming, etc. Something to ponder. The founding fathers never envisaged the America in which we live. And they created a document far more dynamic and flexible than strict constructionists construe.
1
It might sound crazy, but I think the only peaceful resolution to this crisis is going to be if the big coastal populations (I'm talking to you California and New York) figure out a way to drive a massive inward migration. If several million people from these states migrated to the midwest, it would change the balance of power completely and permanently. If we want to avoid another Civil War, voting may no longer be enough, we might need to actually move to where our votes actually count. How could this be accomplished? We need industry and business leaders to buy in and relocate headquarters on a massive scale to midwestern states - people have always and will always follow economic opportunity where ever it leads them...
2
I think the only way out of this problem is to set term limit to the elected officials especially the senate seats. Thus, capable and competent moderate citizens can move in and run for the offices in rural areas. Thus, term limit should weed out the less open, less moderate, and less educated people out of offices. I really don't see other alternative.
One way of restoring some type of more accurate federal representation would be to pass legislation limiting federal funding to the proportion of taxes paid by the state. This, which would make things a lot worse at least for a while, would starve the rural states, many of which depend on taxes from the blue states to survive. The reverse strategy would be to overfund education and infrastructure in the red states in an attempt to attract more corporate investments and a more educated population. TVA and Rural Electrification Administration, WPA, CCC are examples. My impression is that those rural states which have large and well received universities attract both corporate offices and educated people. And wouldn't the House have the power of the budget to achieve this? If you select the second option the Senate would have a hard time objecting.
Talk about a Constitutional crisis. Some necessary changes require constitutional amendments - the Electoral College, equal Senatorial representation for all states, the amendment process itself, since the current system requires those benefiting from the status quo to support changes.
Thank you Mr. Krugman. This is our increasing reality in America. While we need the vast areas of land for our farmers and other 'rural' industries even these areas are under threat. How many individual farmers have to fight the Monsanto conglomerates for farming land and best practice?
There is big monied industry in these rural states. That suits the GOP who love dark money from our CEO's thanks to Citizens United.
The too gentle erosion of one man one vote needs to be addressed at some point. How and when I can not imagine but a good place to start is to end gerrymandering and the Electoral College.
In 1800 the three smallest states had a total population of less than 240,000 people and the three largest states just less than 2 million, roughly 8 times the population of the smallest states. This was the world the framers lived in. In 2010 the three smallest states accounted for just less than 1.9 million people and the three largest almost 82 million people, 44 times the size of the three smallest. This is the world we live in. This is giving a wildly disproportionate amount of power to small states, not unlike the disproportionate power the slave owning south had before the Civil War.
2
The fact that rural states are massively over represented could be rebalanced by differential taxation.
While Democrats now have a majority in the House, this victory is far from a blue wave. And the absence of a blue wave should be disturbing to all opposing the Republican agenda.
While polls tell us that somewhere around 55% of the country opposes the Republican agenda, the opposition is concentrated in cities and suburban communities thereto. This means that the Republican minority view is the majority allowing for the election of Republican candidates in numbers exceeding the 45% that favor the Republican view. The result this election was a muted blue wave. In the previous election, it allowed the Republican minority view to completely control our government.
We may be a divided country, but more importantly the divide is not uniformly distributed throughout our nation. The end result is that the Republican minority view may completely control our government after the next election cycle and others thereafter. And a government controlled by the Republican minority is the single, greatest threat to our democracy.
1
Some of these red states with low population are very beautiful places to live. I think paying blue state retirees to move there would be money well spent and cheaper than paying for political ads, campaigns, pacs, etc. I'm only 1/2 kidding here.
1
I cannot imagine a change in the two-Senators-per-state formula, at least in my lifetime. (I'm kinda old). But I can imagine a change in the way population is distributed in this country. We should all try to imagine that, because climate change is real and a lot of big cities are going to have sea-level issues... Smart infrastructure, high-speed rail & internet, stronger networks of community & state college campuses can all make a difference. Employment patterns are set to change dramatically with autonomous vehicles and robots in general. We are not ready for any of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening....
As long as educated people desert rural America, the gap will widen. This is not a question of color. Blaming will be less effective than settling there. A New Frontier to reclaim rural America is needed.
1
Can we once and for all get it right? The Founders explicitly rejected democracy. That is why the United States is a republic. Read all about it in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Also remember it took two tries. The original "Articles of Confederation" failed so they drafted our current Constitution.
Only with the growth of a non-White majority has the "we're not a democracy" flag been adopted by the alt-right. Abandoning the idea of democracy is a tool for the white-extinction-anxiety-peddling right to try to justify their own grab at minority rule. And in any case, the difference is a red herring: since when can a republic not be democratic?
A historical factoid to consider: why do we have a North Dakota and a South Dakota? Is it because there were two separate territories, or two different constituencies in the single territory? No, it's because Republicans controlled Congress in 1889 and saw it as a way to double the representation of a heavily Republican area. Gerrymandering at its zenith!
3
The good intentions of America’s founding fathers and the grand compromise which led to the Electoral College have become perverted.
Our Constitution determined to avoid having states with smaller populations subject to bullying by larger states, but the presumption was always that over time the population would spread somewhat evenly in each state.
That did not happen, and with the recognition of each new territory as a state, the system was never adjusted. Now, we know that it is not going to happen.
Currently, each Congressional district has about 700,000 citizens, but the political voices of those citizens are wildly stronger in low-population states, because all states have two Senators.
We cannot continue with ‘government by acreage’ and expect any sort of unified nation.
Paul, I see your point. If nothing is done, we could have the situation of 100,000,000 people living in California and 10 people living in North Dakota (I'm exaggerating for effect). So those 10 people have as much power in the senate as the 100,000,000 people in North Dakota. That's not right.
Though I usually agree with Dr. Krugman, on this point I strongly disagree. It was the essential Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention, necessary to create the United States that the smaller states be given equal representation with the larger states in at least one house of a bi-cameral legislative branch so that the small states would not be steam rolled by the larger ones. One could argue that it was a condition of the largely agricultural Southern States so that they could block efforts to affect their "peculiar institution" of slavery, and no doubt that was a factor, but the in-democratic institution still has relevancy for the very purpose that Dr. Krugman addressed.
The economy is moving forward in the larger metro areas of the country, and it is not moving forward in the rural areas. Rural America is falling behind, the fact that they are Red States, doesn't mean that they oppose modernity, but they are demanding to be a part of it. They are not to be ignored but heard. No better way to turn red to blue than to bring infrastructure, broadband, health care and new industry to those areas. The large states can keep ignoring the smaller ones, but at peril of keeping the country held back.
2
Reading the history of late eighteenth century America, one gets the clear impression that the successful conclusion of the deliberations of the Continental Congress was unlikely. Failure appeared imminent several times, and then what would be the result ? No nation. The populous states and the democratically minded may have found the concept of two senators per state, extremely distasteful, but what alternative did they have ? This was negotiation in its most aggressive, shark-like form; no room for compassion here, the slightest blink and you lose. The dominant opinion on choice was: accept the two senators per state clause or no nation, thus the current blueprint of our Congress.
Yes, our Constitution is seriously flawed, let's get together, Democrats and Republicans, have a nice sitdown and make it more democratic, one person one vote. Hah ! Or maybe having thirteen separate countries wasn't such a bad idea, let the states secede into fifty separate countries and then, later, like the EuroUnion, form alliances. Sometimes I visit Cosa Rica, I find the people there more in line with my politics than in several states here.
1
This is exactly what the election drove home for me. The House, which has so much less power than the Senate, is representative of the American people, but the Senate is terribly unrepresentative. We don't have a government By the People, for the People. We have a government with a minority making important decision which affect everyone.
Come on, Paul. I'm blue to the core and think the present Republicans are deeply misguided, but you're missing the entire purpose of the Senate, to be the forum where the majority and minority are on a more even footing than in the House. The problem with the Senate is its culture, not its structure--there's little sense of public service and what providing for the common welfare means. These days, the governing principle is providing for the party's welfare. I don't know the fix for that--maybe it's a military draft or other compulsory public service--but the constitutional structure of the Senate is not the source of the Senate's many problems.
3
What is not receiving the attention, or at least is mentioned but not elaborated on, is the difference between how college educated and non-college educated individuals think about problems. Last week, my wife and I did a fair amount of canvassing for liberal candidates---what we found when talking with Trump supporters is the absence of any intellectual tools for addressing the problems they were so emotional about. This does not mean these individuals were not smart, but they did lack the knowledge and methods of inquiry that would address the problems they were so upset about. This is what frustrates me with the now popular pundit talking point, that liberals need to listen to these voters more---last week I did a lot of listening, but O.K. after you listen to a litany of complaints with huge amounts of misinformation---then what? At some point the ranting must stop and problem solving must begin---and it is at this point the amount of education you have kicks in.
8
Professor Krugman has articulately and succinctly explained a very real structural problem in our political system. What a mess.
It strikes me that since the Republicans will never voluntarily agree to change a system that gives them such an advantage, the Democrats have to work in those states that already have their own demographics in place, but which they have not yet won. Florida, Georgia, and Texas come immediately to mind.
2
The Constitution assigns two senators to each state regardless of size. That means that each state has the same voting power in the passage of legislation. As to the election of officials, the electoral college system give the small states an enormous advantage over the large states. The fact that we are allowed to vote does not turn this country into a democracy, not even close if a democracy is defined as a system in which the vote of every citizen is weighted the same.
The working class trends towards Trump, and you are calling the working class more equal? Any more profound ideas, like maybe NAFTA and globalization is going to be great for jobs and incomes, or open borders will lift wages?
2
@somsai
That's actually not true you know.
In 2016, only a fifth of the 135 million Americans without a degree, voted for Trump.
And this year even the Rust Belt is going blue.
Trump did get (slightly) more votes from people earning more than $100,000 than Hillary.
As to Krugman: his point is that the Senate is highly over-representing states with very low population numbers, regardless of politics. And if you then compare the popular vote with the current Senate, you cannot but notice a discrepancy, with the popular vote being against Trump, and the Senate now being heavily pro Trump.
So the question he raises is: shouldn't the US Senate reflect the popular vote, rather than a minority in this country, knowing how much power a Senate has and knowing that this is a democracy?
Any ideas?
@somsai
What I forgot to add: it do is a fact that if (1) you only look at those workers who voted in 2016, then Trump got a majority of the (2) WHITE working class vote. But that's not the same thing as having the support of the working class as a whole, or a majority of it.
And then we're not talking yet about the fact that on the main issues he campaigned on that would have helped the working class, he immediately flip-flopped upon entering the White House (no repeal and replace Obamacare with something better, and 13 million people's healthcare destroyed by ending the individual mandate, all while increasing costs for the rest of us, no comprehensive immigration reform, etc.).
1
My home town is Seattle Washington. I go back every year for a visit. This last year, for family reasons, I spent more time in rural Washington state than Seattle. What I saw was poverty, lack of opportunity, a less educated population and crumbling towns.
Maybe we could all get a little bit more creative and figure out how to share the wealth of urban areas with rural areas. It seemed almost obscene that Seattle could be so elite and that just hours away, people were really hurting. I can't believe there isn't a way to spread the wealth. It might be tough - but that's the point. We have been ignoring the hard lifting. In the 21st century, why can't people live and prosper in rural areas? We have amazing transportation and communication technology, why can't it be used to share the wealth?
How about we learn how to develop prosperous rural areas....
6
@NA Bangerter it's called taxes, speak to the Republicans about that. You know those people the poor keep electing.
3
Another good column by the Professor which sets out the problem.
After reading many of the comments, I am reminded of the old saying about politics. It goes something like this: "Candidates who can win at the ballot box, win; those who don't win at the ballot box, complain about the process."
This setup with the Senate and Electoral college has been in place since the adoption of the U. S. Constitution and the prospect of changing it is very dim. There are also states (such as Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Maine) where seats are winnable for the Democrats with the right candidates and support.
Maybe the Democrats need to "wander in the wilderness" a few more years until they see clearly what politics is all about -- which is winning elections.
2
States with fewer than 1 million voters should not be entitled to 2 Senate seats. At the time of this decision by our founding fathers, this problem of growth was not apparent. Today it is. The result is undemocratic. This is a solvable problem.
5
Has the time come when the Senate looks more like the House of Lords of landed aristocracy in England in the 18th century? It sure looks like it.
1
Here's my idea
(1) 2 Senators per State but both up for election same time every 6 years. Parties can submit 1 or 2 candidates.
(2) Allow vote coalition among Parties but it must be declared before election. Gives voters an opportunity to emphasize their priorities without wasting their vote.
(3) Winning Senators are two leading candidates allowing vote coalition.
(4) [Here is the novelty) Senate voting power equal to votes cast - rough examples from a more distant past election (no coalition considered in example).
NYS Gillibrand(D) would have 1.45 vote power, Long(R) 0.55
NC Burr(R) 1.05, Ross(D) 0.95
(5) Require 60% of total prorated vote for Senate lifetime confirmation issues; 55% prorated on all other issues.
(6) Senate leadership (Majority/Minority Leader) based on prorated totals. But Committees must be formed 50/50 percent based on 2 Major Parties and their caucusing members bodies. Committee decisions require at least 55% approval based on bodies. Lacking approval either Senate Leader can demand a Senate vote.
(7) Senate agendas (items to take up or not take up) are at the discretion of the Majority leader but the Minority Leader can demand that the House take an expeditious up or down vote on item(s) to demand the Senate take up item(s) expeditiously twice a year.
This allows States 2 full votes on real State issues (like water rights) but reflect proportionate power on National issues.
Preserves States Rights yet reduces demagoguery.
1
Let's remember that the Constitution originally said that State legislatures would elect senators. That didn't change until the 20th century, when the corruption of that system became intolerable.
We have a party here in the USA that's willing to do whatever is necessary to stay in power. I'm constantly puzzled why so many people in those red states are willing to vote against their own interests. Appeals to hate and fear, racism and misogyny, resentment of taxation and growing insecurity distort the public will.
Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote. What makes them so hostile now to the policies that would make their citizens safer and more secure?
I suspect it has something to do with the systematic public relations campaign that has been waged by a cohort of very wealthy people personified by the Koch brothers. Perhaps, if Democrats would use the money donated by "little" people for a similar campaign rather than buying attack ads on TV, we could get to a better place and the difference between the urban and rural states would be less significant.
And there is no fix for this. The rural states would never approve a constitutional amendment to change.
1
The "Framers" couldn't possibly have foreseen the geographical change of the population from rural to metropolitan, and neither the impact of inbalanced democracy representation in the Senate. Perhaps it's time to change the powerstructure between the Senate and House to better reflect the voices of "real America"?
1
One simple constitutional fix would allocate one senator to every state and the remainder allocated by population, but since there's nothing in it for sparsely populated states, they will never vote for it. When was the last time you saw the Republicans vote against their own interests?
I 100% agree with Paul here. But correction of the Senate is very, very high-hanging fruit because it is structural. Lower-hanging fruit would be to end the Electoral College and make a state of D.C. D.C. has more people than either Vermont or Wyoming. It is unconscionable that they have no representation in Congress. The Republicans of, course, will fight it, but they should be put on the defensive. Make them defend the indefensible. Just hammering them on this issue will have both moral and political benefit. We should learn from what the Repubs did on the ACA, minus the lies of course, which is that you can do a lot of execution with relentless hammering even if you don't and can't achieve your objective. Neither elimination of the EC nor statehood for DC is structural. That means it does not correct the problem that Paul speaks of, but it means that they would be easier, and might be accomplished.
4
May not be poitically smart to quote Lenin when addressing the USA's but what is to be done (all right, Lenin stole the phrase from Chernyshevsky). The concept behind the Senate was state's rights, not fair political divisions. Debatable where the concept of state's rights stands today -- Jim Crow versus protecting the environment and consumers are on opposite sides of the political divide. Abolishing the Senate would be dangerous, as each House keeps the other from usurping too much power.
American folklore has long romanticized the wild, wild west, but the outsized influence of its voters in Senate elections and, therefore, national policy is anything but romantic to those who constitute the actual majority in this country.
The disparity of interests and concerns that separate urban and rural voters is understandable, as their lives and even realities, to some extent, are different. Their circles don't always overlap.
That said, this is what state and local government is ideally suited to address, and should. There will always be national issues that override those, including our nation's defense. The Constitution provided for this, permitting the federal government to hold those powers not expressly reserved to the states.
We are faced with a challenge to that fundamental principle, with rural voters having outsized influence over national policy relative to their proportion of the population. That these voters are not representative of the nation as a whole is not new, but the extent to which they control national policy certainly is.
It boils down to all politics ultimately being local. It is resulting in an uneasy mixed marriage between the disparate factions of the electorate. The question, now, is whether the pendulum swing of policy and power will ever be restored, and whether urban dwellers, and in particular, people of color, will continue to face not a romantic, wild wild west, but a long and frustrating spell of wandering in the desert.
It's quite amazing to see the people who use the Constitution as a talking point against conservatives rail against the way Senators are elected (it was very deliberately done that way, and mostly to protect from the kind of authoritarianism and direct-democracy-worship liberals display these days).
4
@Reasonable Guy The election of Senators has been changed before via Constitutional amendment. Before the passaged of the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed, and not elected. The Senate is a powerful chamber and representation has always been contentious.
2
@Reasonable Guy
I can think of at least one of the founding fathers who had sex with slaves, Reasonable.
And he and his liked-minded original pops treated both women and folks of African descent in this dehumanized manner to protect the white patriarchy and landed gentility.
Liberals these days are sort of trying to end that kind of thing.
The Senate means the state right. You cannot ignore it. That is how the America has been found.
It is as important as the popular votes, and we (the majority living in the metropolitan areas) need to reach out to them.
1
True, rural areas are overrepresented in the Senate but also in the military. In April 2005 article, the Chicago Tribute cited a statistic "35 percent of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan were from small, rural towns....recruits are disproportionately rural, not urban, and as rural concentration rises, so does military enlistment."
We let rural areas decide our political policies and we also let them do our fighting for us.
4
The Senate also has become a generational split among families as more young adults migrate to urban areas for education and jobs, rural America is depopulating (offset only by the ironic immigration of labour from south of the border). Hence that senate power increases even as these demographics continue.
1
On Tuesday, across the nation, according to this paper, Democratic Senate candidates got 46,718,545 votes so far.
Republican Senate candidates got 33,879,703 votes, again, so far.
That means 13 million more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans, yet it was a "great victory" for Trump.
It's a great defeat for Democracy. Consider:
85 million votes were cast and there was a 13 million vote difference--a 15% margin
2 years ago 129 million votes were cast for the 2 major party candidates, and the WINNER lost by 3 million votes. A 2% margin.
The 26 smallest states, mostly red, some blue, have 52 Senate seats, a hard majority of 52%, yet represent less than 18% of all Americans.
The 10 biggest states have 58% of all Americans yet have only 20 Senate seats, 1/5 of them.
Some Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment and return Senate selections to State legislatures where they dominate even more...maybe not after Tuesday!
Our Senate system, even more than our House system, was designed, like the Electoral College, to prevent the big states from dominating the little states. And what happened? EXACTLY the opposite!
Unfortunately, out of pure selfishness, there's no way our Constitution can be amended to redress these fundamental imbalances. Small states will simple veto any attempt to change a system that benefits their 18% at the expense of the 58%. Only if enough states join the Pool Electoral Votes movement can the people win over the Electoral College.
5
I thought the electoral college was started because people were considered too stupid to pick out good leaders by themselves, so they elected respectable smarter people whom they trusted to vote for them in Washington? Very undemocratic.
The dilemma is that reform of the way rural areas are represented in the Senate requires the consent of those who are granted extra political power by it. Why would the Republican Party ever consent to this? The only possibility is some sort of coercion to force the issue. That the metropolitan areas have the bulk of the nation’s wealth and pay most of the taxes has to be a factor when push comes to shove.
4
@Robert Hall: So, in extreme conditions, we are forced to think of the extreme? Maybe. We are mired in conditions that the churches condone: misogyny, racism, poverty. But there is always hope for a voice crying in the wilderness. I would dread a new crusade of fundamentalism of the old kind, but what could be more fundamental to Christianity than "love thy neighbor?" Failing a call to toleration and respect, our options narrow.
1
Most of America used to be agricultural, and there was a time when farming could provide a reasonable living for families and communities, if not prosperity for a large number of people. With the US government's emphasis on "Get Big or Get Out", we have hollowed out the farming communities in America till there is almost nothing left. What farmworkers remain in rural America are imprisoned by Big Ag's control of all aspects of their operations -- seeds, chemicals, meat and dairy CAFOs, and prices. We need many new young farmers, who can manage smaller more independent farm holdings, but we need a huge overhaul of our agricultural policies to promote land ownership or long term, evergreen leases; organic regenerative farming practices that will heal the earth, the food we are served, and the people who eat; rebuild economic communities that will honor the land; return of grazing animals to what once were the great plains, and get rid of the mammoth feed lots that pollute the environment. We need to return Americans to a farm system based on nature. And we need to educate our politicians to understand that agriculture should not be based on ditch-to-ditch corn and soybeans.
6
Eliminating customers abroad (ie Chinese) wasn’t very helpful to US Ag!
@vtfarmer; You are correct. Nothing make me sadder than to see the land lying fallow. But young people can start farming by renting the land.
If the Good Guys are the educated urbanites and the Bad Guys are the uneducated rural folks, how can it be that the vilest, least moral and most corrupt President and Administration is our history are all highly educated uber urbanites?
I'm 72 and it's my experience that people who are raised in a good loving home generally turn out to be good people and people raised by jackals and wolves turn out to be Trumps
2
@rabrophy; There you go, name calling. Good vs. Bad. I assure you it isn't so cut and dried.
America has found it difficult to adjust to shifts in technology and immigration, as well as to the decline of the Republican Party into a White Nationalist core and a billionaire-driven agenda of war on progressive policies. That it now enables Trump's corruption and treason is a natural consequence of trends over several decades. Trump himself is a product of virtual reality America (pro-wrestling, The Apprentice), and runs a Jerry Springer kind of White House - vulgar, in your face, and aggressively about making money. As a deeply corrupt and flawed, even partly demented, personality, he plays to his strengths, which are those of a charlatan and pathological liar, a psychopathic manipulator with a lot to hide. Evidently a lot of Republicans also have a lot to hide, and their base doesn't care. By the time this current cycle is over and Trump leaves office in disgrace, the Republicans may well have burned themselves badly and the party may go into terminal decline.
4
See liberals scare me because they keep saying all they want is more "equality" and "fairness" but in reality they seem to want a one party state with no checks and balances.
I dont it's a good idea to change the constitution just because Democrats dont have a real policy platform that speaks to all Americans.
4
I find it funny liberals don’t ever complain about Vermont. It’s very small, mostly rural and very white. Much picked upon Wyoming is more diverse.
Maybe Democrats could I don’t know try to win in states that don’t have their preferred demographic mix, just like the media and others demand Republicans do.
1
@Ed
Actually, that's an excellent point, Ed. No progressive is demanding that Vermont give up Bernie Sanders! I honestly think that the problem is that lots of urban folks (concentrated mostly in the south, midwest, and west) think of themselves as farm dwellers and vote accordingly. On the other hand, there are pockets of rural folks who take a somewhat more cosmopolitan view of themselves and vote accordingly (your Vermont example).
In the west, this is changing a bit, as we see Colorado, Oregon, and Washington begin to align themselves more squarely with progressives (with Nevada and perhaps even Arizona following down the same road. New Mexico and Montana are outliers in a number or respects and have more complicated stories).
Look for Utah and Idaho to slowly begin to moderate their politics over time as well. Both, for example, have voted to expand Medicaid.
5
The Virginia Plan that James Madison proposed at the 1787 Constitutional Convention called for both House and Senate representation to be apportioned either "per quotas of contribution, or the number of free inhabitants...". In other words, larger states that either contributed more financially to the new nation or had more people would have more members in both the House and the Senate.
The proposal almost ended the nation before it got started. "...[A]pportioning representation among the states in the Senate proved to the most contentious issue...creating an impasse that threatened to prematurely terminate the convention," writes Harvard law professor Michael J. Klarman in his 2016 book, "The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution."
As Klarman points out, it was smaller northern states such as New Jersey and Delaware that opposed Madison's plan while larger Southern states -- Virginia and the Carolinas -- supported it. Although Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued extensively for proportional representation, the Convention, after much acrimony, ultimately agreed to what's known as the Connecticut Compromise (so named because a Connecticut delegate proposed it) that gave the House proportional representation while each state would get two Senators, regardless of size.
Madison's plan made -- and makes -- the most sense, but without the compromise, the U.S probably wouldn't have formed. Now we'll see if the Compromise finally destroys the Union.
8
Apparently, from the high moral and intellectual ground, Mr Krugman seems to be saying that metropolitan Americans are smarter than rural Americans.
4
@Bruce Mullinger
He also gives a reasonable explanation why that is so.
@Bruce Mullinger No chance that he's right?
I don't recall anyone on the left complaining about the Senate when the Democrats won a super majority in 2006 with 2 Democrats from small states like DE, HI, RI, VT, CT, etc, enabling Obamacare to pass. Did this set of circumstances disenfranchise voters in, for example, red TX? Now they blame the system. Run better candidates in "red" states.
3
California and New York are increasingly going to have to go their own way. And I'm guessing they will.
1
Liberals scare me...if the next two years are all about how we need to fundamentally change to consitution to remove power from rural voters and install a metropolitan majority that can never be unseated, I dont know how I'll vote in 2020.
I believe the constitution is brilliant. The house and the Senate interact with each other, and the Senate acts as a break on the passionate and sometimes irrational house.
Liberals think that pure democracy is the answer, but it isnt. For example, why would an urban majority (and for the rest of time there will be an urban majority) care at all about rural people for anything? Especially if liberals see rural people as evil backwards bigots. If the rural populace is stripped of power and the Senate destroyed then we will enter a radical era of constant changes and radical swings back and forth in policy.
You know what has held Americs together? Checks and Balances. Not Democracy. Our Republic is designed to make it very hard to make radical changes.
If the Senate is gone, the electoral college gone, and the rural populace essentially disenfranchised, I foresee radical changes that will cause unrest.
I would not be surprised if liberals tried to rewrite the constitution and then destroyed this nation.
4
The point is, why should a handful of rural people dictate to the overwhelming national majority? Minority rule is undemocratic.
@Jacqueline By the time liberals are in a position to "destroy this nation" it will already be destroyed by the Republicans.
I wonder why citizens of Puerto Rico and Washington DC should contribute to an Administration who doesn't represents them.
Shouldn't the reform struggle start where it once began:
'No taxation without representation?'
2