There’s this widely-held notion that the two-per-state composition of the U.S. Senate unduly advantages “red” states (rural areas) with sparse populations as compared to those more densely-populated (urban) “blue” states.

A corollary to this idea is that the U.S. House of Representatives does the opposite, i.e., because it is a per capita form of representation (each seat represented an average of 761,169 people following the 2020 U.S. Census), it therefore favors more heavily-populated (“blue”) coastal states.

Seems to make perfect sense. Except this doesn’t square with actual outcomes.

For example, following the 2022 election results, the Senate was controlled by the “blue” (Democrat) state senators, while the House of Representatives was controlled by “red” (Republican) state members of Congress. If per capita representation favors Democrats while two-per-state representation favors Republicans, how could this outcome result?

Related to this is the myth that the U.S. federal electoral college system serves to consistently disadvantage one political party over the other. If it did, how does one explain the steady stream of presidents hailing from alternating political parties…Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat …

Perhaps one explanation is that the most rapidly growing affiliation of U.S. voters is neither Democrat nor Republican – it’s neither of the above. Unaffiliated (and non-major party) voters now represent roughly one-third of all registered voters. Given the increasing polarization of the parties, which severely reduces crossover voting, it is the unaffiliated voter (“independent”) who drives the electoral outcomes both in the House and in the Senate.

But even putting aside how one might wish our politicians were chosen, the name of the country is still the United States of America. Since its founding, the States have been front and center – not the headcounts. Else we might just call it the United Congressional Districts of America. Doesn’t roll off the tongue.