> The president and house were won by the Democrats. Why does a functioning democracy require them to also control the Senate, when the American system of government was expressly designed with this sort of legislative tension in mind?

You'll notice I didn't complain about that. What I did complain about was that Republican hardball tactics seem to headed towards the conscious goal of not needing to seek majority support in order to control the government. That's frankly unacceptable (and I'm not even talking about the recent nonsense about trying to literally throw out votes on a massive scale until they win a race they lost).

I'm no Democrat, and I think they need to mellow on cultural issues to appeal in rural states like they used to, but the Republicans seem to be playing a far more dangerous game to maintain power that risks the legitimacy of the whole system.

I am very happy there is a split government. I would much rather one party control the House, and the other to control the Senate. Presidency is a toss up, but I'm personally grateful the next two years will be completely stagnant.

Because a majority of the population is represented by Democratic senators?