Did you take an American Government class at any point in your education. If you did then you'd understand that popular vote literally means nothing in the Senate and that there shouldn't be an argument here.

Hmm I thought Nine. Million. More. Would be clear enough but you mean to tell me I have to dumb it down to a kindergarten level? Forget about it. I'm moving on.

FYI, Kirby you missed the point. Almost every body did. I'm actually disappointed and turn off by it.

You can "dumb it down to a kindergarten level", I just want to hear you elaborate on your "nine million more" point. Somehow that means the will of the voters in the Texas Senate election (or any state where a Republican candidate won) should be disregarded because collectively democrat Senator candidates received more votes than all the other parties collective total? 

California has a unique system in which the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party. This year, that was two Democrats - Diane Feinstein and Kevin de Leon. Which means that all 6.3 million votes counted (between both candidates) go to the Democrats countrywide total of 40.5m.

I dont know how you done umnderstand this. 33 seats. Dems won by 9m votes and won 19 seats.  It aint rocket science. 

Not sure if you're from the US or not, but things aren't like in the UK or Germany here. The US is a very, very BIG place, with tons of people, a lot of land mass, and very very different circumstances for people. A farmer in Ohio for instance, has a very different circumstance than a celebrity in Hollywood, a businessman in Texas, or a steel worker in Pittsburgh. This is part of the reason representation by the states is so important vs just sheer population of the nation. A VAST majority of our population is concentrated in the big cities and coastal regions, and what the circumstances are/what's good for these areas isn't necessarily in line with what's best for middle America. If not for the emphasis on representation by states (senate and electoral college), LA and New York would essentially dictate the policies of all of the US.

I am not sure if anyone did not see your point.  The thing is that the Senate has never been nor was it formed based on the popular vote.  It has always been about giving each state equal representation.  The popular vote is the house.  To use the popular vote when questioning the Senate really doesn't play.

Man, fuck everybody who voted a straight ticket without researching the candidates at the bottom. Could have been (R) Adolf Hitler or (D) Iosef Stalin, you didn't look past party affiliation.

Unless by "straight ticket" you didn't even bother voting for local candidates. Then fuck you for that. Start at the bottom and work your way up next time.

What the hell does gerrymandering have to do with Senate races? Do you expect someone in California to be able to vote on who represents Texas? People in Alabama to vote in Wisconsin? They're statewide races.

Since I use to live in broward county when I lived in Florida I can tell you that some crazy gerrymandering crap is going on down there.  Since I still have family in the state, my brother was telling me how a lot of the public poll locations changed this year to gated communities.  In order to vote, you had to show your ID at the gate and in a few of them you had to leave your ID at the gate in order to enter.  Also locations that use to be easy for people to get to were changed so that you have to travel much farther to get to the polling station.  

https://politicalwire.com/2018/11/08/florida-placed-some-polling-stations-in-gated-communities/