ACV Democratic News: Is The Sun Setting on America?

You may wonder how a small group of conservatives manage to gain control of the government. To control the House the district boundaries are drawn so as to favor one party or the other. Below is an explaination of Senate Bias. The chart shows how 50% of the senate is controlled by 16.24% of the population. Note that Virginia with approx 7.5 Million people and ranked number 12th most populated state has the same number of senators as the smallest state of Wyoming with 506,529 people.

Wyoming's vote is 15 times more potent than Virginia's. Compare Wyoming to California and you see a 71 to 1 ratio.

The 24 smallest states have less than 17% of the population and they can run the show. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. When you look behind the curtain it looks like a criminal enterprise and not like the greatest nation on the face of the earth. The big monied interests have taken control of the system and the one person one vote principal has bit the dust. Even with all of these advantages the GOP still restricts the right to vote in an effort to leave out more poor, new and old voters.

The supreme court looks the other way. What will it take to wake the people up? Will it happen in time to save our system?

The Small State Senate Bias

One of the factors that is often overlooked in discussions of the rise of the conservative movment in the past few decades is how this was supported by the way the US constitution was set up to give undue influence to the smaller states. As each state gets the same number of senators, those with smaller population are relatively more important on a per capita basis.

This may not have been too important when the plan was devised, most states at that time were not too large in either size or population and the distortions were not that evident. In the 200+ years since then the country has expanded into unforeseen directions. The results have produced unexpected results.

The most serious of these is the ability of a group of states with small, and most rural, populations to dominate the senate. The table shown below illustrates the effect.

It shows the states arranged by population, with the smallest first. The most important columns for our purposes are the rightmost two. Notice that when the cumulative senate seats reaches 50 the cumulative population has only reached 16% (Kentucky). Notice this effect continues even further. By the time we have reached 70 seats we are still only at 34% of the population. The converse of this is that the eight or nine largest states contain about 50% of the population. They are mostly heavily industrialized and contain large cities and, in many cases, fairly large minority populations. Their interests are being under represented.

Within the twenty five states at this point only two (Maryland and Rhode Island) can be considered urban. The rest are primarily rural. So, in effect, rural states with about 1/5 of the population control the senate. Also note the color coding in the first column (red for Republican, blue for Democrat and purple for split party affiliation) for the senators. It is obvious from this that there is not a strong party effect. However, there is an important effect, nevertheless. These smaller, rural states represent the more conservative type of voters. Their concerns are far from those of big city states and the heavily industrialized larger states.

The result is that the political viewpoint has drifted rightward over the past twenty five years. One could argue that these states always had this power. This is true, but early in the 20th century, these states were rural farm states. Many of their citizens were directly involved in agriculture. They tended to side with, or at least sympathize with, the Progressive movement. So they also found themselves allied with industrial workers against the "trusts." The result of this commonality of interests was the passage of much of the progressive social legislation of the time.

Since then the family farm has essentially disappeared. Thus, those remaining in rural areas are no longer populists. The farms that remain are primarily big, corporate enterprises, and support the same sorts of policies as do those in other large industries. The result of this demographic shift is that the interests of the common man are overwhelmed by the power of corporatism in states representing a tiny fraction of the population.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is, that if progressives are to regain political power, they will need to find a way to overcome the institutional bias against their interests. Even Democrats from many of the smaller states take pro-business positions; that is where they get their funding for their political campaigns. There is no way to alter this built-in electoral distortion, so any progressive movement will have to find a way to shift the dynamics of the senatorial elections towards more progressive candidates. This means finding progressives who are willing to run for office and then finding enough financial support for them to be able to run an effective campaign in spite of the expected opposition from the moneyed interests.

With the popular vote in the country pretty evenly divided, the undue influence of the smaller states means that small changes in state elections can tip the senate to the Republicans. The Republican party knows this and can put the effort into influencing small-state elections at a much lower cost than a campaign in a larger state. The seats one wins are just as useful, however.

The progressives have their work cut out for them if they are going to change the political dynamics. Replacing Republicans won't be enough, they need to go after the "Republican-Lite" Democrats as well.

Senate Seats vs Population

Population Population Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
State Name 2004 Rank Population Senators Pop %

Wyoming 506529 50 506529 2 0.17%
Vermont 621394 49 1127923 4 0.38%
North Dakota 634366 48 1762289 6 0.60%
Alaska 655435 47 2417724 8 0.82%
South Dakota 770883 46 3188607 10 1.09%

Delaware 830364 45 4018971 12 1.37%
Montana 926865 44 4945836 14 1.69%
Rhode Island 1080632 43 6026468 16 2.06%
Hawaii 1262840 42 7289308 18 2.49%
New Hampshire 1299500 41 8588808 20 2.93%

Maine 1317253 40 9906061 22 3.38%
Idaho 1393262    39 11299323 24 3.86%
Nebraska 1747214 38 13046537 26 4.45%
West Virginia 1815354 37 14861891 28 5.07%
New Mexico 1903289    36 16765180 30 5.72%

Nevada 2334771 35 19099951 32 6.52%
Utah 2389039 34 21488990 34 7.33%
Kansas 2735502 33 24224492 36 8.26%
Arkansas 2752629 32 26977121 38 9.20%
Mississippi 2902966 31 29880087 40 10.19%

Iowa 2954451 30 32834538 42 11.20%
Connecticut 3503604 29 36338142 44 12.40%
Oklahoma 3523553 28 39861695 46 13.60%
Oregon 3594586 27 43456281 48 14.83%
Kentucky 4145922 26 47602203 50 16.24%

==== 25 smallest states======50 Senators ====16.24% of population========

South Carolina 4198068 25 51800271 52 17.67%
Louisiana 4515770 24 56316041 54 19.21%
Alabama 4530182 23 60846223 56 20.76%
Colorado 4601403 22 65447626 58 22.33%
Minnesota 5100958 21 70548584 60 24.07%
Wisconsin 5509026 20 76057610 62 25.95%
Maryland 5558058 19 81615668 64 27.85%
Arizona 5743834 18 87359502 66 29.81%
Missouri 5754618 17 93114120 68 31.77%
Tennessee 5900962 16 99015082 70 33.78%

Washington 6203788 15 105218870 72 35.90%
Indiana 6237569 14 111456439 74 38.03%
Massachusetts 6416505 13 117872944 76 40.22%
Virginia 7459827 12 125332771 78 42.76%
North Carolina 8541221 11 133873992 80 45.67%
New Jersey 8698879 10 142572871 82 48.64%
Georgia 8829383 9 151402254 84 51.66%
Michigan 10112620 8 161514874 86 55.11%
Ohio 11459011 7 172973885 88 59.01%
Pennsylvania 12406292 6 185380177 90 63.25%
Illinois 12713634 5 198093811 92 67.59%
Florida 17397161 4 215490972 94 80.08%
New York 19227088 3 234718060 96 80.08%
Texas 22490022 2 257208082 98 87.75%
California 35893799 1 293101881 100 100.00%

Total
293,101,881

The Following Essay is by Robert Feinman. To see all his essays visit http://robertdfeinman.com/society/index.html

Class Warfare - A Different View

There is a neo-populist movement afoot in the US right now. No one is sure exactly what to call it. Analogies with the original Populist party break down over issues of tariffs and xenophobia that were prominent in the original movement. The later "Progressive" movement, which is credited with creating the first round of government regulatory agencies, doesn't fit well either. It didn't have the broad-based working class foundation that is meant when one talks about populism.

These days when critics accuse liberals of engaging in "class warfare" they mean the the working classes are looking to rein in the excesses of the super wealthy. Since this group is tiny, the appeal to defending the rights of Paris Hilton doesn't work well, so they try to include the top 20% as well.

I propose to separate the classes on a different basis than is usually the case. In my scheme there are only two classes: those who have to work for a living and those who don't. Those who work may have different levels of income and wealth, but if they lose their wages they will, eventually, starve.

The blue collar, white collar and professional sectors have more in common than they realize. That the wealthy can disguise this fact is one of the greatest triumphs of social misdirection of the modern age. In the middle of the 20th Century the local town doctor might live in a better home than his patients, but he was part of the community and adverse economic conditions affected him just as much. The same was true for the local banker.

Now we have large sectors of society who make money by dealing in intangibles. These may be financiers, or media people, or others engaged in marketing intellectual property. A dealer in derivatives does not have the same connection to his neighbors as did the town banker. He thus, mistakenly, thinks he has different interests.

What goals do the various strata of the working class have in common?

A clean environment

A safe local environment

Adequate health, education, and retirement services

A functioning democracy

A stable international political scene

The expectation that similar conditions will exist for their descendants

What does the non-working class want?

Adequate supplies of material goods of any sort

A stable and growing economic system

Permanent investment opportunities

Freedom to move capital internationally

Freedom to relocate when any locale becomes too risky

A political system designed to maintain their influence

Why do some in the working class fail to understand where their interests lie? There have been many attempts at formulating an explanation. All seem to have some partial insights. In no particular order: a belief that they will rise to the non-working class and thus they need to support those interests so that they will be in place when they "make it". A feeling of elitism or superiority. Distraction over "values" issues which blind them to the underlying real class concerns. Jingoism or xenophobia which fosters an "us versus them" mindset - another form of elitism. Insecurity or fear which leads to the aim of keeping those who might challenge their position from below being kept "in their place". This latter attitude may not be totally irrational. Many "populist" proposals these days aim at limiting the wealth accumulation of the upper segment of the working class.

The non-working class has every reason to oppose limits on their wealth accumulation since their continuing class membership depends upon the ability to make money from money and not labor. Anything which constrains this will lead to a permanent limit on future wealth growth. Unlike the working class there is nothing they can do to increase their income except have the rules altered. By definition they don't "work" so they can't increase their labor. (I realize that some of the non-working class "work", but they don't have to work to eat they do it for other reasons.)

Now why doesn't a stock trader earning $1 million a year see that his paying a higher fraction of his income is a "good thing"? Doesn't he want a clean and safe environment for himself and his family? Who does he think is going to pay for this? Why the tax resentment? Why does this segment exist only in those countries with a high level of wealth disparity?

As I stated above, I think the problem is one of a misunderstanding of where one's interests lie. In a country with a high degree of wealth disparity (like the US and UK) this imbalance allows too much power to reside in the hands of too few. This not only affects how elected representatives are selected, but also means that the information outlets are in the hands of the non-working classes. The misinformation barrage is thus unchallenged. Politicians who represent the working class don't get elected and voices from this class don't get heard in the press or on the air. With a continual program of class misidentification the working wealthy become blind to their real interests.

A member of the non-working class can leave his home country when things get too bad, but what happens to the financial analyst who thinks he is member of this same group?

He is stuck in the muck just like his blue collar compatriots. As the problems of resource shortages spread even the options for relocation will diminish. Perhaps the 400 wealthy families in the US can relocate, but where will they go in 50 years when climate change affects the entire planet?

If you are making $1 million per year, be glad to pay 50 or 90% in taxes and realize that you are still ahead of 99.99% of the rest of the people on the planet. You can't eat gold and you can't buy protection during a revolution, just ask the French aristocracy of 1789. If you are among the most fortunate than you have an obligation to contribute more to society. When did greed replace community as one of the virtues?

The question is how to get people to understand where their interests lie in the face of a generation-long misinformation campaign. I don't have an answer, but perhaps the rise of alternate sources of information will provide the needed wedge. This needs to be defended as well. There are already steps being taken to limit the reach of dissident internet sites as well as to control access to the network itself. Don't expect the legal system to support the working classes. Judges and government workers suffer from the same misunderstanding about their class affiliation as do all the others.

Warner Re-Elected

A Million fewer voters participated this time than in 2008 when Gilmore got the same number of votes as Gillespie and went on to lose by a million votes. A million voters stayed home and didn't have enough interest in the outcome to give Mark Warner their vote. Mark still won but by slightly less than 17,000 votes. When democrats get too apathetic to come out and vote we are in real trouble. One thing you can say for the GOP, they keep their voters filled with hate and fear and motivated to go to the booth and vote every election. How can we motivate democrats to give a dam about their own lives and who represents them in Washington?

Ed Gillespie will not seek a recount in his tight race for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Mark R. Warner (D), conceding defeat Friday in a campaign that positioned the Republican well for another run for state wide office in Virginia.

The race was surprisingly tight as Gillespie rode a wave of GOP enthusiasm that flipped control of the Senate and raised questions about the extent of Warner’s appeal in a changing Virginia. Gillespie seized on voter discontent with business in Washington and effectively portrayed Warner as an insider.

Warner had claimed victory Tuesday night, but Gillespie held off on any concession until the ongoing canvass of votes across the commonwealth showed him to be further behind than on election night. That's right folks he was slipping further behind as the canvass continued so Gillespie called off the recount. Gillespie said he had a “nice conversation” with Warner on Friday morning.

“This obviously was a hard-fought race, and I’m proud of the campaign we have run and I loved every minute of it,” he said, winning applause from supporters gathered at a Springfield banquet hall. Pausing for a beat, he added to laughter: “Well, maybe not this one so much.”

Gillespie became emotional toward the end of his announcement, and his wife, Cathy, fought back tears when he thanked her and their three children.

Gillespie will return to lobbying to make money and wait for another political office to become available so he can run again.

In a statement, Warner commended Gillespie on a “hard-fought campaign” and said he would focus in his second term on trying to reduce the deficit and avoid further budget cuts due to sequestration.

“On Tuesday, Virginians sent an unmistakable message both to me and Congress as a whole: End the gridlock and get to work,” he said. “I will spend every day working to get the Senate back in the business of solving problems and not simply scoring political points. I will work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to shake up this dysfunctional Congress and move us toward common ground.”

An election attorney for Warner’s campaign said Thursday that at last count, Gillespie was trailing by 16,761 votes out of more than 2 million cast.

In accordance with the usual process, a statewide canvass of votes is scheduled to conclude Tuesday but will not be certified until Nov. 24, according to the Department of Elections.

Gillespie is a former head of the Republican National Committee and was a political adviser to former president George W. Bush. He began his campaign trailing by double digits in the polls to Warner, a former governor generally regarded as the most popular politician in Virginia. But voters in southwest Virginia, who had supported him in
his previous campaigns, abandoned him Tuesday.

Some have said Gillespie could turn his near miss into a campaign for governor in 2017 or assume another leadership role within the party. Gillespie left his concession announcement without taking questions, but that did not stop supporters from speculating about his future.

Amherst County Virginia Democratic News