Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
752
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + +
Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House? (view source)
Revision as of 14:01, July 24, 2011
, 14:01, July 24, 2011no edit summary
*The course of history is towards increasing [[conservatism]], but the Senate's longer term of office means it is slower than the House in catching up to the increasingly conservative public.
*The course of history is towards increasing [[conservatism]], but the Senate's longer term of office means it is slower than the House in catching up to the increasingly conservative public.
* Because only 1/3 of the Senate is elected each year, only 1/3 of the seats can shift from Democrat to Republican in a given election (excepting special elections). However, the entire House is up for reelection every two years. So, if 60% of voters vote Republican in a given election, roughly 60% of the House will be Republican (actually, that isn't exactly true. It depends on the distribution of Democrats and Republicans among electoral districts. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion). However, since only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election each year, even with significant seat changes, it's still slower to respond than the House. The Democrats lost 6 of the 19 Senate seats they held that were up for reelection this past 2010. In the House, they had a net loss of 63 seats of the 257 they held that were up for reelection (they actually lost a few more than 63, but gained a few too). So, they actually lost a HIGHER percentage of seats in the Senate than the House. However, fewer Senate seats were up for election, so they still controlled it. One of the reasons for the higher percentage of Senate seats lost was because many Congressional Districts will always vote Democrat (or Republican) no matter what. In NY-15, Democrat Charlie Rangel won 80% of the vote in spite of facing massive corruption charges. It helped that NY-15 is the most pro-Democrat district in the country. Rangel won over 90% of the vote in 2008, before the charges. If a Democrat senator were facing those charges, then since the state as a whole would be significantly closer than an individual district, they'd almost certainly lose. (As Republican Ted Stevens did in traditional red-state Alaska in 2008). But since some districts have such great support for one side or the other, it's pretty much impossible to get them to switch sides. Hence, the Senate actually sees more swing in most elections than the House, but since not every seat is up for election, it has less impact.
{{Add to list}}
{{Add to list}}