Journalists are at it again.

In 2016, after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, many reporters and commentators complained that that U.S. Electoral College is both unfair and outdated.

Now, with Brett Kavanaugh's official confirmation to the Supreme Court this weekend, certain members of the news media are arguing that the U.S. Senate is unfair. Rural states like North Dakota and Wyoming, they suggest, should not have equal representation in Congress alongside densely populated (and reliably liberal) states like New York and California.

Call it the cry of the sore loser. Because that’s what it is.

“It may not happen in our lifetimes, but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change,” said NBC News’ Ken Dilanian, whose coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation fight ranks among the absolute worst and irresponsible.

The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump published an entire article, titled, “Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans,” wherein he wrote, “I am aware of the Senate and the electoral college. It is worth noting, though, that this structure can at times conflict with the precept that all men are created equal.”

“We are a country where two presidents who both lost the popular vote have now placed four justices on the Supreme Court. Democracy in action,” said GQ magazine correspondent Julia Ioffe (former President George W. Bush nominated two Supreme Court justices during his second term in office, after winning the popular vote in 2004).

Great points. If only there were some deliberative body where voters were represented directly, and where state representation was based exactly on population. New York alone would have 27 representatives while North Dakota would have only one! We could call it the “People’s House” or maybe the “House of Representatives.”

More seriously, these the-senate-is-undemocratic arguments would be more deserving of good-faith consideration were it not for the timing. The fact that these complaints are being made directly following a Democratic defeat suggests that they aren't exactly coming from an impartial and sincere place. Also, note that Article V of the Constitution explains explicitly that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without first giving its consent. Good luck pitching the Republican and Democratic representatives of North Dakota and Wyoming on willingly surrendering their equal voice in Congress because some guy at NBC or the Washington Post thinks it’s unfair.

Finally, these arguments would be more deserving of good-faith consideration were it not for the vapid inconsistency of the people making the argument. That is, the fact that they focus exclusively on rural red states, all while dismissing the sparsely populated northeastern states, sort of gives the game away.

For your consideration, Texas has a population of roughly 28 million people, according to the most recent U.S. Census data. Georgia is home to more than 10 million people. Tennessee has a population of roughly 7 million. In contrast, Vermont is home to a whopping 624,594 citizens. Delaware has 952,065 residents. Rhode Island barely cracks a million with its current population of 1,056,426, and it gets one more vote in the House than Montana, which just surpassed its population.

[Opinion: Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court will radicalize the Democratic Party]

state v state.png

As soon as I see the people complaining this week about unfair representation in Congress also argue it’s outrageous that Texas and Vermont share two senators apiece when the latter is so small and home to so few, then maybe I’ll believe they’re not being disingenuous.

Until then, there's no reason to see these arguments as anything else but the frustrated whining of the fans of a losing team.