Annie Lowrey speculates:
Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with [2/10 of a senator] working on behalf of the millionaires. Eight senators would represent Americans with no income. Sixteen would represent Americans who make less than $10,000 a year, an amount well below the federal poverty line for families. The bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with 34 representing Americans making $30,000 to $80,000 per year. . . . Or how about if senators represented particular demographic groups, based on gender and race? White women would elect the biggest group of senators -- 37 of them, though only 38 women have ever served in the Senate.
I don't know how well all of this would work in practice--for one thing, I wouldn't want the senator who represents two-year-olds to be anywhere near the nuclear button--but I agree that ideas of fairness and political representation are subtle.
Along similar lines, here is my response to economists who complained that there were not enough economists in elective office:
I was curious about this so I looked up some statistics--not on Congress but on the workforce. According to the 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States, there were 139,000 economists employed in the United States, which represented 0.1% of the employed population. 1% of 535 is about 1/2, so with at least two economists in Congress, the profession is hardly unrepresented.
139,000 is a crude estimate because it presumably represents the people whose job title is "economist" (and thus wouldn't include, for example, Matt Kahn, who originally raised the "not enough economists in Congress" issue and whose job title is "professor"). But, even throwing in all these economics professors and various other practicing economists, I still don't think it would add up to the half-million that would be necessary to reach 2/535 of the employed population.
This is not to debate the merits of the argument--perhaps Congress would indeed be better if it included more economists--but rather to note that people with this sort of job are a small minority in the U.S. (In contrast, there were 720,000 physicians, 170,000 dentists, and 2.1 million nurses, and 1.7 million health technicians in the U.S.)
To put it another way, without reference to economists (or to the 2.1 million "mathematical and computer scientists" out there): the Statistical Abstract has 260,000 psychologists. Certainly Congress would be better off with a few psychologists, who might understand how citizens might be expected to react to various policies.
I'm willing to believe that the country's 890,000 lawyers are being overrepresented, but what about the 114,000 biologists? A few of these in Congress might advance the understanding of public health. And then there are the 290,000 civil engineers--I'd like to have a few of them around also. I'd also like some of the 280,000 child care workers and 620,000 pre-K and kindergarten teachers to give their insight on deliberations on family policy. And the 1.1 million police officers and 340,000 prison guards will have their own perspectives on justice issues.
So I think that representation is a tricky issue. Most of us would probably like more "people like us" in Congress, but that's tough with only 535 seats to go around, and given that there are a lot of politicians already out there (many of whom are lawyers) who you'd be competing with.
Does it make a difference? Maybe so. In his article, "Does the Numerical Over-Representation of the Upper Class in U.S. Legislatures Matter?", Nicholas Carnes finds:
Throughout America's history, most political decisionmakers have been highly-educated, wealthy individuals from prestigious, high-paying occupations. . . . On balance, this study's findings suggest that the numerical over-representation of affluent Americans in elected offices promotes more conservative economic policy outcomes, although not for the straightforward reasons that political observers have often suggested.
P.S. One suggestion that's come up from time to time is to form the Senate from a national random sample of adults. This would give you all the representativeness you'd want.
P.P.S. Apparently the House has four (former) blue-collar workers: Phil Hare of Illinois, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Mike Michaud of Maine, and Bob Brady of Pennsylvania. I don't know how many former nurses, police officers, or child care workers they have.
63 comments
Easier way to make Congress more representative. Have each Presidential ticket include a list of 50 Senators and 100 Congressmen. The winning President also brings in these with him. These serve for the full four year term. It both makes it easier to pass a Presidential agenda and forces a candidate to show his hand in terms of the people he is associated with.
Bart Stupak was a cop...
wow, you lefties will do anything to create artificial divisions between Americans and divide us up into warring camps along gender and race and income lines...
Why does the Left so love to push divisions between Americans?
Demagoguery about "fat cats" and dividing black from white is not how this country works in 2010, you leftist hacks.
Stop pushing hate and trying to destroy a 240 year long successful experiment with your leftist insanity
"I don't know how many former nurses, police officers, or child care workers they have."
One nurse (C. McCarthy), two cops (Stupak and Reyes), and no child care workers but about half a dozen primary or secondary school teachers (Towns, Kissell, Gallegly, and Walz all went directly from the classroom to Congress) and one social worker (Shea-Porter).
Geoff, do you really wonder why no one takes you seriously?
Well, an adequate representation of the people would mean about 400 complete idiots sitting in congress.
I'm not talking about people whose political opinions you disagree or whose way of doing politics you dislike, but people who can't read a text properly or who cannot add 2 and three (makes 5, btw)
Slow news day, eh? What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?
Incidentally, there are so many ways to break down demographic representation that it eventually becomes meaningless.
i.e. for me, my race is slightly overrepresented (extremely so in the Senate), my gender is extremely overrepresented, as is my religion, while my educational-attainment level is about right and my profession is slightly overrepresented.
My state, being of average population, is actually about right in the Senate.
But my income level is almost completely unrepresented, and my generation is tragically underrepresented.
You can dig up demographics that make everyone both over and underrepresented in some way (unless you were say a poor Latina child-care worker with no college education from a big state--actually that's a pretty significant group!).
The problem with the Senate is at heart not a demographic question--it's a matter of not being in any way proportional to population or ideological concerns, and of not being a democratic institution).
Here's a better question: what if there were no Senate, period?
Or maybe it's not a better question, since the answer (a massive increase in the quality of life of every single American) is pretty obvious.
Sigh...three hours to the Super Bowl...
Here's a better question:
Who's the smartest person in national politics?
My answer: Newt Gingrich.
Discuss.
@Obliterati
Hmm. What if we could just eliminate the Senate and add 100 or so Representatives to the House, maybe give some representation to non-state territories.
That would do a lot more to improve the quality of representation in this country.
What about the criminal class? Woefully underrepresented.
And so few journalists are allowed to perform brain surgery.
Life is unfair.
what if Genghis Kahn had a submachine gun with unlimited ammo?
@minntastic
Some would say that the criminal class is far too overrepresented in Congress.
Touche.
You know, I remember reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and some of Robert Heinlein's non-fiction essays, and they asked the same basic question -- 'why do we Americans (Brits, Australians, etc.) consider geographic distribution the most important way to break up our representative population?' To an extent, it does seem to work, as Nate's models show states tend to cluster together, and that within states, cities and suburbs tend to have different demographics and voting than rural areas. But, why let both houses of Congress be set by that? Why not do one by region and one, say, by household income (as determined by the IRS), since income does seem to predict people's voting patterns, and determine what people want from government. Or one by petition -- get a number of registered voters to sign for you and you alone, and you're in. People who oppose you can just find another candidate to back.
The US government is a grand experiment, but there is something to be said for continuing innovation. If anything, the states can be test grounds for it, with some basic ground rules.
@jacob et al
the point of the Senate makeup in the Constitution is to defend each individual state's rights.
Messing with that would destroy American federalism and make NY/CA/TX/IL the bosses and everyone else the followers.
If this were true it would be a better country. Can we also just do it on education and intelligence? More intelligence, more representation. We would be Democratic so FAST! that way! Look at any poll, educated people are Dems, there's a reason for that...
Wow, Andrew, you are so right. I mean, don't you think it's unfair that 100% of doctors are graduates of med school, that's not at all representative of the population.
Also, if you're going to break things up by income, why not give votes away by income too? For every $20,000 you make, you get one vote. After all, why should people who pay no taxes have a say to where it goes?
(If any of you are too stupid to realize it, I was being sardonic)
And, to all of you wanting to abolish the senate, are you for real? Our system works because it is slow. That's why its near impossible for Obama to pass healthcare reform that most people don't want, but it was also near impossible for Republicans to pass social security reform that most people didn't want as well.
@ghost
Smart voters are Dems? Really?
What about this Pew Poll which absolutely disproves your commentary?
http://people-press.org/report/586/
Republicans More Knowledgeable on Many Issues
Republicans, on average, answered one more question correctly than Democrats (5.9 vs. 4.9 correct). These differences are partly a reflection of the demographics of the two groups; Republicans tend to be older, well educated and male, which are characteristics associated with political and economic knowledge. Still, even when these factors are held constant, Republicans do somewhat better than Democrats on the knowledge quiz.
Among the largest gaps comes over knowledge of who leads the U.S. Senate. About half (48%) of Republicans are able to identify Reid as the current majority leader, while only a third of Democrats can name their own party’s Senate leader. More Republicans can name Reid (48%) than Steele (37%), the RNC chairman.
"Messing with that would destroy American federalism and make NY/CA/TX/IL the bosses and everyone else the followers."
Initially there was some truth to that, which is why the Senate was created. The interests of the midatlantic region that made up a majority of the country at that point might have been more aligned than they were with other states. States were essentially independent republics with peculiar interests, and wanted some way to protect their sovereignty.
For better or worse, that's not so true anymore. The smallest combination of states making up a majority (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, and NC) do not share much in common, nor do Rhode Island, Utah, and Mississippi. There's not much risk of the representatives of those ten states (138 Democrats and 97 Republicans) being able to find measures that they agree on that the bulk of the country does not.
I think the fact that a group of Senators representing less than 11% of the country can stop any legislation from passing is a far more serious flaw.
@Ghost of Henry, Past
That was Geoff, not Charles. Two separate nonsensical trolls.
You are so full of shit your eyeballs are floating in it Charles.
First, what idiot would follow a woman who needs a cheat sheet for a simple three part answer to a question she knew she would get:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html
As to your poll, LOL! Intelligent, educated people are dems, try a real poll, not a self selected Bullshit one. Look at any poll, and your meme that college professors are all dems is true, is your meme now a lie Charles? A lying republican? An inconsistent Republican? Nah, never...
Charles-
Education is not a only a predictor of party identification, it is THE BEST predictor. Go to school, learn, you too will be a democrat:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=6542
@jacob
you see the Senate system and American federalism as a flaw, i see it as a strength and a reason America is the longest lasting pure democratic Republic (no royalty at all) in the world.
Any response re the Pew poll at all folks? The left wing Pew group finds GOP voters smarter than Dem voters - kinda crushes that "GOP voters are stupid" narrative dont it? And starts teh "Dem voters r Stupid" narrative anew.
Well, adios all - off to drink and watch the Super Bowl. I encourage the 538 hive to wedge themselves away from their computers and watch a little non-metrosexual entertainment for a change. :)
@ghost - you just ignoring the Pew Poll? A piece of paper doesnt make you non-ignorant.
http://people-press.org/report/586/
Republicans More Knowledgeable on Many Issues
Republicans, on average, answered one more question correctly than Democrats (5.9 vs. 4.9 correct). These differences are partly a reflection of the demographics of the two groups; Republicans tend to be older, well educated and male, which are characteristics associated with political and economic knowledge. Still, even when these factors are held constant, Republicans do somewhat better than Democrats on the knowledge quiz.
Among the largest gaps comes over knowledge of who leads the U.S. Senate. About half (48%) of Republicans are able to identify Reid as the current majority leader, while only a third of Democrats can name their own party’s Senate leader. More Republicans can name Reid (48%) than Steele (37%), the RNC chairman.
Republicans-
People go to school for a reason, they go to learn they are not the most intelligent people ever but instead go to learn who others know to be great thinkers. If you have never learned, how can you be educated and intelligent? My dog lacks language, and thus ability to learn from past generations, what idiot wants to be my dog? What idiot wants to ignore the past learnings and then repeat them? Oh, yes, Republicans...
This could be one of your worst posts ever!
Do you want prisoners to be represented as well? You also assume that every profession is equally suited to being a memeber of governemnt.
You also seem to forget that people vote. Do you claim people should only be allowed to vote for a rep. of group X if Group Y is already over-represented.
Norman-
This post is somewhat tongue in cheek, and is not from Nate, but Andrew - who happens to a great stats prof.
Snarky comments from some of you while being predictable just point out that you don't even understand what most come to this site for. It is interesting to think about different things and to question and probe. Diving to the lowest point and coming back with some clap trap about doctors having gone to medical school is juvenile. I think it is an issue of who and what gets represented. How about a group that I believe is and has been under represented, namely the military. One would think that congress was full of full blown military and intelligence experts to listen to them talk. Of course most in congress couldn't form up on command but I guess that is to be expected. But some days it appears that even some of the few that have worn the uniform have either forgotten the lessons they should have learned or they never really learned them in the first place. I wonder if we even have a congress member that was an enlisted in the military. We do have one retired Navy type in PA I keep having hopes around.
Not to take any of this too seriously, but...
The legislature actually has a job to do. It isn't a focus group or a random sampling, and shouldn't be made into one. Yes, yes, there's a lot of room for improvement as things stand ... but the lawyers and other professionals have very good reason to be "overrepresented."
And electing representatives geographically to the legislature of the United States makes perfect sense so long as the component states are geographically defined.
@Mainer:
I don't think they're underrepresented. There were about 120 at the last count I saw, which included multiple decorated combat vets and some still serving in the Reserves.
Mainer-
How is the military underepresented? They get every break to be allowed to be vote, and they deserve it and they take it.
I do think this is an interesting thought exercise, even if that's all it is. The Senate is intentionally antidemocratic, and that is how it was intended from the start. It has clearly become vastly more so over the years, to the point where it is unworkable. But we will never actually change its makeup or rid ourselves of it. I think we can confidently look forward to the year 2050, when each Californian Senator represents 30 million people, while each in Wymong continues to represent around 300,000. Interesting to note that this is precisely the disparity the the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in California's State Senate. If only our Constitution allowed us to exercise as much common sense at the federal level!
I'd consider also how many people are on social assistance of some kind in this country. Only two former welfare recipients in the House. None, of course, in the Senate.
And Geoff, you sound like an awful date at any form of entertainment, metrosexual or otherwise. (Big guys grinding into each other sounds to me like "otherwise"?) But seriously, who wants to spend the day with a party talking point of any persuasion? What a bore...
I wouldn't want the senator who represents two-year-olds to be anywhere near the nuclear button
And are adults so much better that you want their senator near the button? Personally, I don't trust ANYBODY with the power Uncle Sam wields.
Andrew's post is so close, yet so far from being helpful...
First, the Senate is the wrong playing field, as it's especially designed so all states could be equal in it. To get over that, you'd need an unanimous vote of all states, which you're not going to get, or a revolution.
On the other hand, the vote for Represenatives is ruled by simple laws, with only the method of apportioning the number of Representatives per state being mandated by the Constitution.
Within each state, the Representatives could be chosen by pretty much any method - plurality, IRV, or multi-member districts with STV or a party list system.
It would even be possible to sort people by income, or by property, as long as it's guaranteed that people get equal representation. But like others here, I think that would reward splitting the society further. (Then again, I also think gerrymandering is about as dangerous, because it artificially creates safe districts in which candidates no longer have to appeal to society as a whole, just the part dominating the district)
This idea that we should have representatives "more like us" is getting dangerously close to wanting representatives who we'd "like to have a beer with" -- and look where that got us.
Rather than making Congress more like the overall population by having fewer economists, what we need is an overall population that's more like Congress is (or at least more like Congress should be). We need a population that has some understanding of government, economics, foreign policy, and public policy as a whole. Democracy is based on the idea that the people know best. When they don't, things can get ugly.
(Also, just a comment on the article's final point about Congress being disproportionately made of people from high-paying professions: That's of course true, but we also need to consider elected officials' backgrounds. For example, yes, President Obama was a (presumably pretty well-paid) professor of law for many years, but he definitely wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. In contrast, if you look at the Kennedy and Bush families, not only were they wealthy when they took office, but they were wealthy growing up as well. That distinction, between growing wealthy and being born into wealth, can really make a difference in people's worldviews, values, etc.)
"But, why let both houses of Congress be set by that? Why not do one by region and one, say, by household income (as determined by the IRS), since income does seem to predict people's voting patterns, and determine what people want from government. Or one by petition -- get a number of registered voters to sign for you and you alone, and you're in. People who oppose you can just find another candidate to back."
Or by ideology? IE proportional representation?
The problem with majority rule single-member districts is that it's like giving the majority the right to cast the vote of the minority.
While I think it would be hard to use race, occupation, or other categories where membership is fluid ( income, for example, varies annually ), one thing that might work would be devoting part of the representation for a state by age -- say, give 1/3 of the state's representatives so that they're elected to represent the 18-30/31-45/46-60/60-85/etc groups, divided according to the population of the state in each age group, and let only folks in each age bracket vote for their representative.
I have a lot more in common with another person near my age than I do with someone who happened to buy the house three blocks away.
because u're only sampling 100 (tiny sample size), the chance of skewing towards one extreme of ideology is high due to variance.
Assuming the country is roughly 50/50 split between conservatives and liberals (debate that ratio all u want, but it's sematics), then you might well end up with 66 liberals in one election, then flip down to 40 in the next one.
That can easily end up with extreme policy initiatives that goes well with the base but upsets the majority in the middle.
it might work for one party at one election, but then it might turn 180 degrees 2 years later and haunt and taunt you.
term limits is better to fix congress - 18 years for senators and maybe 12 years for reps might be a good start.
> P.S. One suggestion that's come up from time to time is to form the Senate from a national random sample of adults. This would give you all the representativeness you'd want.
In one of his early novels (I think it was "In the Wet" but I could be wrong) Nevil Shute postulated a future date where Australia is falling apart socially, politically and economically. The country saves itself by instituting a 7-vote system.
Every citizen has one guaranteed vote. He/she can earn 6 extra votes on a variety of criteria including (just trying to remember here, I read this years ago) property ownership, church attendance, marital status, military service and completion of high school.
The argument was that the country got vastly better politicians when they were not subject only to the uninformed whim of the masses. Competent people were more willing to run and to serve.
I guess it's horribly elitist to make people work and achieve in order to have an increased say in the running of their country... but hey... it sure worked well in the book :-)
I found some of the same info on the the military in congress. Much better number than I believed.
Filistro: I'd much rather get my ideas of how to structure government from political science than Heinleinian science fiction.
Alon... I can't really argue with you... except about Nevil Shute being "Heinleinian". It's hard to think of a single word to describe the guy's work, but that wouldn't be one I'd choose.
Well... also it seems to me the political scientists have screwed things up to the point where we should be getting our ideas wherever we can and chewing them over to extract any bit of juice we can find. Not that I'm in favor of a multiple-vote system... it's pretty much the very antithesis of democracy, after all... but how would you suggest we find better people to run for office?
Look at all the cool, smart, top-notch political minds at a website like this. How many of the people who post here would have any desire to actually run for office? Are any of you so inclined?
By default our political jobs go mostly to narcissists and incompetents, while the really smart people sit back and criticize their performance. As Dr. Phil would say... how's that bin workin' out for us?
Well, if you want to look at real-world examples of technocracy, there are a lot of them in the authoritarian parts of East Asia, and I think also in the Middle East. Singapore is a pure technocracy. Its ruling party is staffed with people who went to Oxford and Harvard, and rigs elections to ensure it controls nearly all seats in Parliament. China's ruling elite is heavy on scientific and engineering prowess. Hong Kong's appointed government is dominated by business and pro-Chinese interests.
And in all three countries, what you get is an elite that's entirely detached from everyday life, and not too concerned with ordinary people. Hong Kong and Singapore have the two highest inequality rates in the developed world, ahead of even the US. They get technical challenges right where the US fails, for example designing good transportation and cleaning up urban pollution, but on basic compassion issues, such as job security or civil rights or not having 70-year-olds scrub tables because their social security ran out, they fail miserably. And China is headed in the same direction, only worse.
I don't think you can chalk up the faults of American governance to political scientists. Political science actually provides the language with which to express the issues of American governance, and discuss ways to resolve them.
For the record, the Washington State Senate Majority Leader, Lisa Brown, is a Ph.D. level economist.
"Every citizen has one guaranteed vote. He/she can earn 6 extra votes on a variety of criteria including (just trying to remember here, I read this years ago) property ownership, church attendance, marital status, military service and completion of high school."
Did they take away votes for attending church? I'd be all for that.
Anybody caught political blogging looses a vote. Trolling minus 3. Stupid comments minus 1........what would one do when they owed votes?
Trolling minus 3.Stupid comments minus 1... what would one do when they owed votes?
Well natch... you'd be forced to attend church, get married, join the army, go to school and keep buying houses until you'd pulled yourself out of the hole.
It would certainly improve the atmosphere at this site, wouldn't it? Pete Kent, for instance, would have to do 30 years in boot camp just to get back to even.
I'm liking it more and more...
I thinking back to my youth with that. I'm not sure even PK would deserve that. Cruel and very unusual I'm afraid. I still get the shivers over a few of the old moss backs that could eat recruits in a single bite. 9 weeks seemed an eternity.
Interesting, that whole concept. What's the purpose of the studied brutality, do you think? Is it to weed out the noncommitted, or create "us v. them" cohesion, or destroy individualism to prevent questioning of authority...?
I always wonder how our modern, coddled, ultra- precious kids get through it nowadays. Maybe the drill sergeants have become more "sensitive?"
In all honesty there is much less overt brutality than the movies would have you believe. In modern day basic by all the services there is very little done that is left to chance or that occurs for anything not pre programed. People have to learn to respond to commands quickly and often with out question. That is not a natural trait. People also bring an amazing amount of baggage with them that has to be left behind. Until one is forced to focus all their energy on a single goal to the exclusion of other competing thoughts it is hard to accomplish that.
I'm not sure I would even now ever consider a DI as sensitive. They are though much better trained and programmed to produce a given result. I had the opportunity to visit Paris Island a few years ago and I was amazed at the discipline not just of the recruits but of the DI's as well. Some of my DI's were a little on the rough side. But it was some 30+ years ago. I don't think I was brutalized exactly but I was scared to death of a couple of them and then by chance served under one of them a short time later when he rotated out of training to a regular command. Talk about flash backs.
Every citizen has one guaranteed vote. He/she can earn 6 extra votes on a variety of criteria including (just trying to remember here, I read this years ago) property ownership, church attendance, marital status, military service and completion of high school.
It's an interesting idea, but the specific criteria would have to be different (church attendance and marital status are stupid criteria, and property ownership, for example, is guaranteeing more votes to people born rich, not to people who work hard).
China ensures representation based on demographics, among ither categories. Even those living in autonomour regions have representation.
(a) isn't that what House of Reps is for?
(b) how about making Senate representation by proportion of taxes paid by the same groupings?
All that this keeps coming back to is that we would probably be a more democratic nation without a Senate.
That's funny. Congressman Phil Hare is called "blue-collar." The guy has to sit down to pee...I don't think he's pushed a broom in his life.
Compare to Bobby Schilling; started a business, worked blue-collar, et cetera.
Anyone can run a really good campaign to look like a blue colar worker. What if Congress were just required to hire advisors in those various fields?
This is actually an active school of thought among some multiculturalist thinkers.
The underlying assumption is that people of common groups think the same, which is pretty ridiculous.
A more interesting argument could be: why not let everyone vote on everything all the time?
@Jonathan
Phil Hare worked in a textile factory (non-supervisory) for over a decade before joining Lane Evans' congressional staff.
@Ghost of Henry Past:
Remaking the US Senate into a population based legislative body isn't a good idea. Simply because ANYTHING that puts more power into the hands of a legislature heavily influenced by California politicians is a bad idea. Take a look at the current economics and politics of my native "Golden State". OMG, or as some of my Alta Californio ancestors would put it, ADM.
"Norman Kittrell said...
This could be one of your worst posts ever! Do you want prisoners to be represented as well?"
Think about it. You could be a prisoner tomorrow, if the government made a law that made you a criminal.
Voting for prisoners, or even sortition (that's what the random sampling scheme discussed here is called) is a prudent safety valve to prevent politicians from mass-disenfranching groups that don't vote for them through targeted laws.
What you don't get is that democracy is robust. It can handle a couple of loons, criminals or extremists fine. Just because you are in one of those groups, doesn't mean you may have legitimate concerns as well as illegitimate ones. For the reasonable ones, you get a shot at being heard through allying with a part of the sane/non-criminal/non-extremist majority.
@Rebecca:
Or one by petition -- get a number of registered voters to sign for you and you alone, and you're in. People who oppose you can just find another candidate to back.
What you describe is just proportional representation. :) Most versions I've heard of make it slightly more efficient by allowing voters to "sign a petition" (i.e. cast a vote) for a list of people, and the number of people who "sign" determines how many people on the list are elected.
But yes, I think this is a great idea, not least because it means that people can decide for themselves how they want to be organized.
Post a Comment