You might want to sit down for this one … but it turns out that the total population of states served by U.S. Senators who voted to convict Donald Trump outweighs that of those who voted to acquit. How is this possible?

Vox’s Ian Millhiser breaks it down for all the Boomer rubes. First, a reminder:

And now, let’s get topical:

It’s almost as if we’re not set up as a democracy!

Millhiser writes:

The reality, though, is that the only reason a majority of the Senate voted to keep Trump in office is that the body is configured in a way that systemically advantages Republicans. The blue state of California has 68 times as many people as the red state of Wyoming, for example, but both states still receive two senators.

Democrats actually control a majority of the Senate seats (26-24) representing the most populous half of the states. Republicans owe their majority in the Senate as a whole to their 29-21 lead in the least populous half of the states. This means that overall, the current Republican Senate “majority” represents about 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”

Outrages. The Lefty Blue-Check Brigade needs to spread this far and wide.

Ah, yes. Math by Millhiser™. Always worth paying attention to.

This scoop is so hot, it got retweeted by none other than AOC herself:

Apparently the fact that AOC is a U.S. Representative doesn’t mean that she knows the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Aside from the fact that the Senate is not based on states’ populations, there’s the whole thing about the Senate not having come close to meeting the required threshold to remove the president from office.

What’s really funny is that Millhiser himself acknowledges this:

As a practical matter, Trump likely would remain in office even if the Senate were not malapportioned. The Constitution provides that, in an impeachment trial, “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.” In a Senate fairly apportioned by population, Democrats would have a majority, but they almost certainly would not have a large enough majority to remove a president.’

So, basically, what we have here is Millhiser admitting that the entire point of his article today is, well, pointless. It’s almost as if he knows he’s completely full of crap and doesn’t give a crap.