[spankalee]

Sorry, I copy and pasted wrong, the Democratic senators represent 24M more people, and had about 2.8M more votes, yet have 6 fewer seats counting the independents that caucus with the Dems.

So fewer voters and constituents for a pretty significant majority in senators.

[newfriend]

So you've abandoned the "majority" vote argument, and now you're saying the individual vote tallies in that state don't matter.

So if 49% of California voted Republican, but both Senators are Democrats, then the entire population they represent should be counted as Democrats.

A flawed argument.

It also completely ignores the entire reason the Senate exists in the first place, to represent the States.

[spankalee]

No, the _minority_ vote argument still holds. The Republican senators represent a minority of the vote and population, yet have a strong majority in the Senate. It's minority rule.

[newfriend]

Again, you're mistaking a Senator representing a state vs the people in a state. The Senator represents the state, no matter if they got 51% or 100%.

What makes you say that Republican senators represent a minority of the population?

There is no real way to determine the population in each state represented by a party other than votes. The presidential vote tallies (the only truly national vote) are the closest we have to this. Numbers in the Senate are fairly close to the popular vote (not a coincidence).