If US Senate Were More Democratic, Democrats Would Hold Fillibuster-Proof Majority in 2009

Doing a little sorting of data readily found online*, one can see that, by percentage of population, Democrats clearly represent over 60% of the U.S. in the Senate today, and yet they fall a few seats short of holding an actual fillibuster-proof majority. Hence, Republicans are over-represented -- and with the simple threat of a fillibuster they are able to thwart the will of a clear majority of the populace.

While one might appreciate the thinking of the founders in assuring that smaller states have stronger representation in the Senate than they do in the House of Representatives -- thereby preventing outright large-state bullying -- perhaps a more fair system might allot more than two Senators to a state such as California with 36 million residents and just one to a state like Alaska with not even 3/4 of a million people. Solid red Texas with 23 million would have more than the currently blue Montana with less than one million.

Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment to modify this arrangement, and given the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and inertia and apathy across the nation regarding any structural changes to our government whatsoever, improvements seem unlikely on even a limited scale such as tinkering with the U.S. Senate.

In the meantime, Republicans, without much effort, can foil or water down any Democratic attempts at passing meaningful legislation in the Obama age, legislation that might socialize healthcare or massively invest in infrastructure such as schools and public transit, or significantly push our economy toward green technologies without it getting mucked up by Republican priorities like tax cuts, big business hand-outs, and warmongering. Of course, that assumes that Democrats would be interested or brave enough to make such radical moves in the first place if they were free of Republican constriction.