There are 55 Republican U.S. Senators out of 100 total (44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning Independent).
You would think that Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate get more votes, combined, than Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate. About 55% of the total vote.
That would make for a legislature that reflects the voters.
And. . . you would be wrong.
Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate actually earned *more* votes than Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate.
And, in total, got far fewer seats in the legislature.
That, to me, is appalling.
A majority of voters in Senate races voted for Democrats. And the Republicans dominate the chamber.
You have to add up the votes from 2004, 2002 and 2000 because Senators get six year terms. And the data is 'skewed' by races like our own in Illinois, where Barack Obama earned more than a million more votes than Alan Keyes.
But that's the point -- even though we sent Obama to D.C. in a landslide with a bigger margin of victory than total votes in other states, we only get one Senator out of all that.
That's not fair.
That is not democratic.
That's political affirmative action for Republicans.
The data is here -- far from official and subject to mistakes, I'm sure, so if anyone else crunches the numbers and comes up with a different figure, please let me know.
And yes, I understand that this unfair, undemocratic way of electing the highest legislative chamber in the world's only superpower was an intentional decision made more than 220 years ago by long dead men. I also think it's a bad decision to continue to make in 2005.