Pennsylvania Represented by Race and Income

One of the more interesting articles I've read recently was from Annie Lowrey over at the Washington Post, where she asks, "[W]hat if the 100-member Senate were designed to mirror the overall U.S. population -- and were based on statistics rather than state lines?"

What she finds, based on income, is very interesting:

Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with a single senator working on behalf of the millionaires (technically, it would be two-tenths of a senator). 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.

She also looks into race and gender:

White women would elect the biggest group of senators -- 37 of them, though only 38 women have ever served in the Senate, with 17 currently in office. White men would have 36 seats. Black women, Hispanic women and Hispanic men would have six each; black men five; and Asian women and men two each.

Her theory is based on the fact that the structure of United States Senate is completely -- for lack of a more appropriate, but less unsophisticated word -- ridiculous. According to Senate historian Donald Ritchie, "[h]alf of the population of the nation lives in 10 states, which have 20 senators. The other half lives in 40 states that have 80 senators." Make sense?

For example, California has two senators. California has a population of almost 37,000,000 people, which means one senator per 18.5 million constituents. Wyoming, however, has a population of less than 550,000 citizens -- yet are still represented by two Senators -- so that gives each senator approximately 275,000 constituents. Just that mild difference of 18,225,000 people with the same senatorial representation. No big deal.

Even though it doesn't make as much sense to do this state-wide rather than nationally -- just for fun -- let's look at this in terms of Pennsylvania. We've got 50 state senators in PA, so let's assume that we'll still have 50 state senators representing us in our new statistically-based democracy.

(Note: These assumptions are based off of the Census Bureau's Pennsylvania data from 2008. Income estimates are based on 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars. Demographic estimates are also from 2008, but do not specify things, for example, like "white women," things are broken down solely as "white" and "women," so there is a decent amount of assumption taking place.)

Hopefully, Ms. Lowrey won't mind me playing Mad Libs with her statistics.

Based on household income:

• Two senators would represent Pennsylvanians earning $200,000 or more per year;
• Fourteen senators would represent incomes of Pennsylvanians from $75,000 to $200,000;
• Twelve senators would represent Pennsylvanians who make less than $25,000 a year (an amount below the federal poverty line for families);
• And the bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with Twenty-two of them representing Pennsylvanians making $25,000 to $75,000 per year.

Based on race and gender:

• White women would take up the biggest portion, almost half, with twenty-two Pennsylvania senators;
• White men come in a close second at twenty senators from Pennsylvania;
• Black women and black men from Pennsylvania would have three senators each;
• Latino women and men from Pennsylvania would have one senator each;
• And any men and women that are Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander, or any other race would not be represented, since their totals do not get to 2% of 50 -- which is what would be necessary to acquire one senator.

Any way you look at it, agree or disagree, different ways of breaking up the Senate would certainly be interesting.