Pictured: Apparently not a historian.
A number cruncher Nate Silver may be, but a historian he clearly is not.
Politico dropped a piece earlier today on how gun control measures would struggle with the current make-up of the House and Senate – an analysis that is not wrong, mind you – and Silver, who rose to fame as a guy who plugs numbers and formulas into spreadsheets, decided to expound on it.
The Senate's overrepresentation of rural states (e.g. Wyoming has as many senators as California) is also a big barrier to changes to gun laws. https://t.co/oy3M6pggtu
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 23, 2018
Look. This isn’t U.S. History 101. This isn’t even high school U.S. Civics. This is middle school level stuff, Nate.
For a lot of folks who read us here at RedState, middle school social studies was a long time ago. However, we were likely blessed with a decent teacher who taught us the beginnings of our great nation, and that includes the various compromises that led to our Constitution.
Silver’s response to Politico indicates that he perhaps does not remember or maybe did not have a great social studies teacher, because it is incredibly ignorant of the facts regarding the make-up of the House and the Senate.
You see, there was a bit of an argument between the guys writing the Constitution. One group said representation should be based on population. The other group said that representation should be equal no matter the population.
So, in the spirit of proper negotiation, a compromise (a pretty great one, if you ask me) was made. There would be two chambers for our representatives. The House of Representatives would be based on population, the Senate would be based on equal representation.
Therefore, the purpose of the Senate is act as a shield against the dominance of the urban/coastal majorities, and the House balances out the majority of less-populated states.
In short: It’s not overrepresentation, Nate. It’s balanced representation.
When you think about the compromise, it was incredibly forward-thinking. At the time, there were 13 states, all located along the eastern side of the country, and all growing. The Great Compromise effectively balances out the representative issues we would be facing with either system today.
Because there are fewer people in those areas though, folks like Silver, who still believe that rural rubes are the reason we are “suffering” under Donald Trump, are resentful of the power those rural states can wield in the federal government.
Perhaps not respecting their contributions to political society are one of the reasons they don’t seem to like this coastal line of thought, hm?