View Full Version : USA: Time to ditch electoral college?
Now that we're past the election, what do Orgahs think?
Best argument I've heard for ditching the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)): Force national candidates to focus on large population centers, instead of swing states.
Best argument for keeping EC: Prevents nationwide recounts.
Thoughts?
-edit-
Note that I think it's damaging to our system when a candidate wins the EC without winning the popular vote. Undermines confidence, builds resentment, deligitimizes the administration, etc. This rare but incredibly harmful outcome is my main objection to the Electoral College. It is not enough to hold free and fair elections; the population must feel that their voice was heard, that majority counts. When the EC and popular vote diverge it's just bad all around.
imho it's time. It's been a fine institution all along, but has largely outlived its usefulness. I do not dislike the Electoral College, but have serious reservations about its usefulness.
a completely inoffensive name
11-09-2012, 19:03
I say keep it. I don't want a government that has the public directly electing all of Congress and the President.
gaelic cowboy
11-09-2012, 19:11
How about a mix of the two
Each state apportions there electoral college votes on a popular basis but the one with the most votes gets two more votes based on the senate seats available.
so for example in the state blah blah
Candidate x get 51% = 6 EC votes + 2 extra
Candidate y gets 49% = 5 EC votes
your votes then counts not matter where you live but you still have power in small states because of these two extra votes.
Pretty sure the EC is only invoked for the Presidential election; the Seventeenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) provides for direct election of US Senators.
-edit-
Ah, sorry, I had a reading comprehension fail. I get your point now. Apologies.
Fisherking
11-09-2012, 20:06
Electoral College or direct election makes little or no difference. It is the winner take all laws enacted in the States that cause the problem. If each district that elects an elector were independent then every vote would count.
As long as you have winner take all it is going to be the same.
If each district that elects an elector were independent then every vote would count.
That would still leave the option for a candidate to win the electors without winning the popular vote, an outcome that I believe is extremely negative.
Kadagar_AV
11-09-2012, 20:12
What's wrong with having one vote per person?
And the candidate with the most votes wins?
Doesn't have to be rocket science.
a completely inoffensive name
11-09-2012, 20:24
What's wrong with having one vote per person?And the candidate with the most votes wins?Doesn't have to be rocket science.The public doesn't deserve to vote for president in the first place.
Ja'chyra
11-09-2012, 20:27
God forbid any backwards country that would elect someone to rule without having the majority, or even the most, votes.
Sarmatian
11-09-2012, 20:41
Best argument for keeping EC: Prevents nationwide recounts.
You're not going to have nationwide recounts. Citizens vote in their local place and that place keep records of all citizens eligible to vote in there and record of how many people voted. If numbers don't add up, you do a recount locally and if necessary, repeat the process locally.
If that's what you mean by recount - counting again if something doesn't add up?
GC, I'm not seeing how your proposal would avoid the possible outcome in which the EC winner is not the popular vote winner. Explain a little more, please?
The EC should stay- and let's repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it. :yes:
The president is chosen by the states. The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.
gaelic cowboy
11-09-2012, 21:33
the country is not that big that you couldnt just do one man one vote and add them all up so to be honest I think it suits the politicians to keep it.
If you were worried you can just double or even treble the amount of polling stations so that the amount to be counted can be kept manageable on a local level.
The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.
Hmm, don't you worry about the effect on the public when the EC winner is not also the popular vote winner? The last time that happened was 2000, and the public reaction was pretty ugly.
Whoever wins a presidential election, I'd like them to begin their term without that sort of cloud hanging over them.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2012, 21:41
Would should ditch the electoral college. With the electoral college it often comes down to a few states, and sometimes to a tipping point state. If the tipping point state has a lot of defense industry jobs, the candidates may have to promote big defense industry spending. If the state has a bunch of union manufacturing jobs, the candidates may have to promote protectionism.
Having the race confined to a few states makes it easier for campaigns to win by sheer organization as well.
I wonder about a lot of reforms really.
What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?
What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?
I'd be interested to see if any other countries have tried it, and if so, how it worked out. I can imagine many, many possible outcomes, so I'm keen to read about real-world consequences.
Sarmatian
11-09-2012, 21:44
What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?
I'm not sure what would that achieve.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2012, 21:46
I'm not sure what would that achieve.
The idea is that they will focus on doing the best job they can instead of focusing on getting reelected.
interesting:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27550538?uid=3739840&uid=374728553&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21101269861263
I can't read the rest of the article but apparently it was proposed at the constitutional convention, and proposed as an amendment in 1826, and has been endorsed by 15 presidents as of 1988.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2012, 21:57
What about some reform of campaign tv ads? It's tempting to say "ban them" but I don't know about that really--there could be an important criticism that needs to be made of a candidate that isn't getting mentioned in the media.
Maybe we should make it a rule that you can only buy national ads. If you want to say something, you gotta say it to everybody, not just to a certain part of a certain state.
Strike For The South
11-09-2012, 22:00
What about some reform of campaign tv ads? It's tempting to say "ban them" but I don't know about that really--there could be an important criticism that needs to be made of a candidate that isn't getting mentioned in the media.
Maybe we should make it a rule that you can only buy national ads. If you want to say something, you gotta say it to everybody, not just to a certain part of a certain state.
Now you sound like my mother
I am big proponent of taking as much of the franchise away as possible
Every time I have to vote for a judge, I have a stroke
a completely inoffensive name
11-09-2012, 22:15
The EC should stay- and let's repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it. :yes:
The president is chosen by the states. The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.
I agree completely with this. The public treats the presidency as a dictator, which is horrendous and should be squashed before the deification becomes worse. If the public wasn't allowed to vote for president, the issue of swing states becomes moot.
Oh, I get it, Xiahou is proposing that there be no national vote at all. Sorry. Long day, not enough coffee, my reading comprehension is full of fail.
Kadagar_AV
11-09-2012, 23:01
In Sweden, IIRC, every party get the same amount of money from for the election, so that who has most money don't dictate who wins.
I can see the sense in that, why wouldn't that be working in the US?
In Sweden, IIRC, every party get the same amount of money from for the election, so that who has most money don't dictate who wins.
I can see the sense in that, why wouldn't that be working in the US?
What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?
How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?
And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.
Sir Moody
11-09-2012, 23:22
What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?
How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?
And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.
for the US it would probably work better as each "Candidate" rather than each party - and why does it matter how much as long as they spend the same?
Kadagar_AV
11-09-2012, 23:28
What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?
How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?
And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.
IIRC
I think there are 2 levels.
level 1. partys with X thousand signed members, they get a smaller amount of money, mainly to produce voting tickets and stuff.
level 2. partys backed by more than 4% of the population, 4% is also the minimum required to be represented in parliament. This money should go to adverts and stuff.
How much money... You would have to decide that yourself. Enough to make yourself heard, but not so much that you deafen people is what I would recommend.
The bolded part though is why I agree it's unlikely to be taken seriously anytime soon.
Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2012, 00:15
Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.
Why not just do a popular vote then...you are representing the same thing at that point except with the number 55 instead of 38 million.
gaelic cowboy
11-10-2012, 00:25
Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.
You could still end up with someone not being the popular vote prez
Oh, I get it, Xiahou is proposing that there be no national vote at all. Sorry. Long day, not enough coffee, my reading comprehension is full of fail.No, no no. Voting is fine, but people need to remember that the states choose the president- not the masses. The state's all have chosen the general setup where their citizens get to pick the state's electors, but it wasn't always this way.
Like I said, the states choose the president. The popular vote usually aligns with the outcome, but it's not necessary. If it bothers people, it's because they're ignorant of our system of government and assume that some miscarriage has happened because the popular vote didn't align with the electoral outcome.
At one point in time we had wonderful restrictions on campaign financing. I think a simple repeal of the citizens united decision would solve must of those problems.The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/spending-by-independent-groups-had-little-election-impact-analysis-finds/2012/11/07/15fd30ea-276c-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html) would like a word with you....
"Record spending by independent groups, which in many ways defined how campaigns were waged this year, had no dis#cern#ible effect on the outcome of most races, according to an analysis by The Washington Post."
Citizens United struck a great blow for free speech and limited government. It was the right call.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-10-2012, 03:24
If we remove the electoral college as a vestigial component of the process and shift to popular vote only, we should also consider dropping the "50 experiments" thingee and substitute regions that are more balanced and fewer in number and do NOT have separate executive or legislative power. Handle it through regulatory bodies established by Congress in the interest of national parity and standards for laws, regulations, and the like.
Strike For The South
11-10-2012, 03:28
If we remove the electoral college as a vestigial component of the process and shift to popular vote only, we should also consider dropping the "50 experiments" thingee and substitute regions that are more balanced and fewer in number and do NOT have separate executive or legislative power. Handle it through regulatory bodies established by Congress in the interest of national parity and standards for laws, regulations, and the like.
Texas will remain its own region
no qualms
Fisherking
11-10-2012, 08:22
That would still leave the option for a candidate to win the electors without winning the popular vote, an outcome that I believe is extremely negative.
How is that? If the majority won that elector and every other was won by majority vote it is not a very likely prospect. It is not state by state it is district by district supposedly distributed by population, as it mirrors Congress.
i.e. the Nebraska-Maine method
And the horrible blue versus red state thing will be gone with one swift stroke. Of course those 50 shades might be too much for the more tribal minded people.
CrossLOPER
11-10-2012, 16:15
eliminate the electoral college
fuse both potential terms into one
mobocrasy
presidents who have no fear of the public after being voted in and stay in office for more than half a decade
endless parade of George W. Bush presidents
You guys are just running out of topics, aren't you?
ICantSpellDawg
11-10-2012, 21:22
Keep it. If States want to enfranchise their voters, it's up to the States to determine a popular vote allotment of electors. Good luck getting a super-majority to repeal a Constitutional provision when you can't get a simple majority to say that the sky is, primarily, blue.
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2012, 21:30
Keep it. If States want to enfranchise their voters, it's up to the States to determine a popular vote allotment of electors. Good luck getting a super-majority to repeal a Constitutional provision when you can't get a simple majority to say that the sky is, primarily, blue.
You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
ICantSpellDawg
11-10-2012, 21:36
Interesting. I don't see a problem with big democratic states signing this law. It would be hilarious to see a Republican win the popular vote and force Illinois, California, NY and Massachusets to give him/her all of their electors. We'd just need to find the sweet spot. Hey, to prevent this, who don't big Democratic States just pass laws promising all electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in advance of the actual vote?
Papewaio
11-11-2012, 23:24
By the people for the people not by the states for the states.
Each vote should be equal regardless of your socio-geographic location.
So my choice would be a directly elected President based on the system used in Australia for MPs and senators. Very unlikely to need a recount, doesn't cause problems by voting for an independent and would allow functional protest votes, also more likely to elect a moderate that would be easier to eject if they did not perform well.
Likewise for states direct election of the senators and for house direct election in the regions.
One other change would be the voting regions and electoral roll would be maintained by an independent group. So that regions were based on something sensible such as required services so those tha serve could do what is required with more ease, also so that it stops the politicians rigging the zones.
ICantSpellDawg
11-12-2012, 02:15
By the people for the people not by the states for the states.
Each vote should be equal regardless of your socio-geographic location.
So my choice would be a directly elected President based on the system used in Australia for MPs and senators. Very unlikely to need a recount, doesn't cause problems by voting for an independent and would allow functional protest votes, also more likely to elect a moderate that would be easier to eject if they did not perform well.
Likewise for states direct election of the senators and for house direct election in the regions.
One other change would be the voting regions and electoral roll would be maintained by an independent group. So that regions were based on something sensible such as required services so those tha serve could do what is required with more ease, also so that it stops the politicians rigging the zones.
I'd be ok if there were 2 elections, one election for anyone who wanted it, the next for the top 2. I don't like the idea of a free for all when the most radical candidate gets elected. sure, you could get a Ralph Nader, but you could also get a Rush Limbaugh - or a Hitler, or Lenin.
gaelic cowboy
11-12-2012, 02:33
I'd be ok if there were 2 elections, one election for anyone who wanted it, the next for the top 2. I don't like the idea of a free for all when the most radical candidate gets elected. sure, you could get a Ralph Nader, but you could also get a Rush Limbaugh - or a Hitler, or Lenin.
Why do you assume the most radical candidate would/could get elected.
Is it not possible this nightmare scenario could happen under the present system.
Papewaio
11-12-2012, 03:34
It is also highly unlikely using Australia's votin system unless they preferred a Hitler or a Lenin.
ICantSpellDawg
11-12-2012, 05:09
Why do you assume the most radical candidate would/could get elected.
Is it not possible this nightmare scenario could happen under the present system.
The current system effectively prevents real change from occurring. This is terrible in some ways, exceptional in others. Landed power interests control both parties. Ideas don't win, ideas within very limited parameters determined by individuals who run most things win. A pure, direct vote would eliminate the parties ability to control the variable's and lead to a very different system. This would be great if we got someone who happened to have some level of self control and decency. This would be terrible if we got someone who had no ties to anyone else and made decisions that were ideological and not moored to reality.
Papewaio
11-12-2012, 05:24
What can a president do without the help of the Senate and the House?
gaelic cowboy
11-12-2012, 12:53
The current system effectively prevents real change from occurring. This is terrible in some ways, exceptional in others. Landed power interests control both parties. Ideas don't win, ideas within very limited parameters determined by individuals who run most things win. A pure, direct vote would eliminate the parties ability to control the variable's and lead to a very different system. This would be great if we got someone who happened to have some level of self control and decency. This would be terrible if we got someone who had no ties to anyone else and made decisions that were ideological and not moored to reality.
I dont see how the variables are anymore controlable to prevent a demagogue getting elected under the electoral college.
I was waiting to see some hard numbers, and they're finally making their way out. Looks like the House Dems actually got more votes than the House Repubs, but due to the power of gerymandering redistricting, the Repubs maintained control. Whether you love or oppose the House Repubs, this is fairly obviously something that needs addressing.
Details. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/)
The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.
What saved Boehner’s majority wasn’t the will of the people but the power of redistricting. As my colleague Dylan Matthews showed, Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to great effect, packing Democrats into tighter and tighter districts and managing to restructure races so even a slight loss for Republicans in the popular vote still meant a healthy majority in the House.
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2012, 16:53
Why is that a problem?
This isn't a popular vote for the overall Congress. Why should voters in California who turn out in droves for a Democratric candidate have any effect on a close race in, say, Washington state?
You could argue about gerrymandering, but that's a separate issue.
Again, this isn't a popular vote.
CR
gaelic cowboy
11-12-2012, 16:54
Is your boundary commission that draws up constituencies essentially an arm of whoever controls the house or what??
Is your boundary commission that draws up constituencies essentially an arm of whoever controls the house or what??
In most states the party that controls the Statehouse does the redistricting. This creates a rather straightforward set of incentives.\
This isn't a popular vote for the overall Congress. Why should voters in California who turn out in droves for a Democratric candidate have any effect on a close race in, say, Washington state?
Yeah, I am under the impression that even in states where the overall vote trended Dem, the returned congresscritters were majority Repub. I'll see if I can find some more fine-grained breakdowns, and whether or not they support this. But initial analysis seems to be that gerrymandering works wonders.
gaelic cowboy
11-12-2012, 17:10
In most states the party that controls the Statehouse does the redistricting. This creates a rather straightforward set of incentives.
Well that should be got rid of for a start and a completely independent board should look after the boundary changes.
Note that this analysis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/how-redistricting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/) still depends on contrasting the overall state vote without a breakdown of congressional v Presidential votes, but it's an improvement, and still suggests that the wonders of redistricting have created an unrepresentative outcome.
https://i.imgur.com/7Qei3.jpg
The fact that the House total barely budged in a very good year for Democrats nationally — and in which House Democrats won the popular vote — suggests that [redistricting] probably played a role.
This is especially clear if you take a look at the share of House seats won by Democrats in states where Republican-controlled legislatures redistricted in 2011 and 2012, and compare that to the share of the vote President Obama won.
Utah gave a quarter of its vote to Obama and a quarter of its House seats to Democrats, and New Hampshire sent two Democrats to the House despite Obama’s only having a six-point margin there. But otherwise, these states all sent far fewer Democrats to Congress than the Obama votes would suggest.
Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania were the worst offenders. In each case, only a small number of seats from each state went to Democrats despite the fact that Obama won all of them. In Virginia, for instance, 27 percent of seats went to Democrats, while Obama got 52 percent of the vote. In Pennsylvania, 28 percent of seats went to Democrats, and Obama won 53 percent.
Accomplishing this required, as Dave Weigel noted Wednesday, truly bizarre district shapes. The following chart shows Pennsylvania, a state where Obama beat Mitt Romney by 6 points in the two-party vote.
https://i.imgur.com/GLilm.jpg
All the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were put into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.
This isn’t as true for Democratic-controlled redistricting, and not just because Democrats ran redistricting in only six states. Democrats are just worse at gerrymandering when they get the chance.
Fisherking
11-12-2012, 17:45
I was waiting to see some hard numbers, and they're finally making their way out. Looks like the House Dems actually got more votes than the House Repubs, but due to the power of gerymandering redistricting, the Repubs maintained control. Whether you love or oppose the House Repubs, this is fairly obviously something that needs addressing.
Details. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/)
The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.
What saved Boehner’s majority wasn’t the will of the people but the power of redistricting. As my colleague Dylan Matthews showed, Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to great effect, packing Democrats into tighter and tighter districts and managing to restructure races so even a slight loss for Republicans in the popular vote still meant a healthy majority in the House.
In deed turnout can vary from state to state and district to district. This is a small margin and could be accounted for in that regard. Voting districts within a state have to be the same approximate size. It is also a matter of small states having a congressman.
If Wyoming having a congress person upsets you then you need to get Congress to up the number of seats. They imposed the seat limit 1929. They can change the law to a larger number than 435.
Blaming apportionment on a political party controlling Congress also shows that the persons making that charge are ignorant of the facts. Apportionment is based on the census. Then it is up to each gaining or losing state to redistrict. The political party at the state level is where you look for gerrymandering.
Voting districts within a state have to be the same approximate size. [...] Blaming apportionment on a political party controlling Congress also shows that the persons making that charge are ignorant of the facts. Apportionment is based on the census.
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but if you have the ability to control the districts, are you not able to pack most of your opponent's supporters into a few districts, while drawing for yourself a much larger number of, say, 60/40 split "safe" districts for your own side?* Thus skewing the congressional representation wildly in your own direction? Isn't that, in fact, how it's done? Look at the PA map again.
* Note: My district, which happens to be Paul Ryan's, is split almost precisely 60/40 Repub/Dem, which seems like exactly the number you would want to maximize your congressional seats while still leaving a district "safe" for the incumbent. Just sayin'.
Fisherking
11-12-2012, 19:26
And that is a state problem...not national.
Which is why I posted the WaPo breakdown of individual states ...
Fisherking
11-12-2012, 19:55
Which I had not seen at the time of my post, but if you check other states which are solidly Democratic I am sure you will find the same sort of 60/40 splits favoring the other party. When have politicians been fair?
Actually, if you could Read The Friendly Manual, or rather the shortish article I linked, you will see that the Dems are measurably worse at gerrymandering. So sadly, in states where they control the districting, you do not see the same effect. Which means the popular will of the electorate comes dangerously close to being represented.
Seriously, I am not linking to 100-page PDFs. I don't see why it's such a bother to read even, say, the text I pull out and repost.
Salient sentence: "This isn’t as true for Democratic-controlled redistricting, and not just because Democrats ran redistricting in only six states. Democrats are just worse at gerrymandering when they get the chance."
Fisherking
11-12-2012, 20:32
One would expect that the Republicans were better at something than the Democrats. In this case it looks like they hired better research staff, and listened to them. I am confident that when the next census comes up the Democrats will do a better job.
Now what other propaganda facts are you going to amaze us with?
Kralizec
11-12-2012, 20:32
Just curious: say you're an American who's registering to vote and fill in that you intend to vote Democrat (which would be required to participate in primaries in some states, if I understand this correctly) would that sort of data be gathered and accessible to say, the people who draw up the constituency boundaries?
Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania were the worst offenders. In each case, only a small number of seats from each state went to Democrats despite the fact that Obama won all of them. In Virginia, for instance, 27 percent of seats went to Democrats, while Obama got 52 percent of the vote. In Pennsylvania, 28 percent of seats went to Democrats, and Obama won 53 percent.Before I go any further here, let me ask you what you think an appropriate result should be. Should 53% of the House seats have gone to Democrats to match the 53% of people who voted for Obama? What's the margin for error/split ticket voters before you suspect foul play?
*As an aside, I've long thought that party affiliation should (D) or (R) should be banned from the ballots. Make voters at least know the name of the person they want to vote for instead of just matching letters.
a completely inoffensive name
11-12-2012, 21:49
This is why there needs to be more Representatives in the HoR. 435 leads to dumb math like this and more blatant gerrymandering.
Here's an idea for all those that would be afraid of a HoR with 1000+ members, why not assign representatives based on registered voters instead of pure population?
ICantSpellDawg
11-12-2012, 22:11
Middle of the road voters also have a tendency to moderate their choices by selecting the opposite party in Federal and local elections to balance their main choice.
This is why there needs to be more Representatives in the HoR. 435 leads to dumb math like this and more blatant gerrymandering.
While this would fix some of the inequities, I'm of the mind that we need fewer reps. The more people making the decisions, the less responsibility any of them take for the bad ones.
On the gerrymandering, the Dems used to be pretty good at it, especially when fixing districts in attempts to get minority Reps elected. The trouble is they concentrated too many votes in one district, and weakened the ones around it. If I remember correctly, this was a significant factor in 1994. NC's 12th district is the classic example.
Nebraska/Maine method, and repeal the 17th.
[W]hat you think an appropriate result should be. Should 53% of the House seats have gone to Democrats to match the 53% of people who voted for Obama? What's the margin for error/split ticket voters before you suspect foul play?
Your question is based on a couple of false premises. I do not suspect any foul play, just good old gerrymandering. Nor do I think the national vote should somehow be magically reflected in the congressional representation.
That said, I find the idea that a party can redistrict their way into disproportionate representation distasteful, for a number of reasons. Much like my worry about a popular/electoral college split, I don't like situations that deligitimize our system of government. An election should not only be fair, it should appear to be fair. (I'd go into accounting concepts such as "goodwill" and "reputation" but I'm pretty sure you've taken some Econ classes in your time.)
Anyway, inertia is the strongest force, so I doubt anything interesting will be done with the EC or with the state-level gerrymandering.
Papewaio
11-12-2012, 23:06
In sports you have a referee. Why not have an independent ref for drawing up the zones?
Also I'm not so sure it can be easily defined as a state or federal issue. It is state representatives in the federal government so it crosses whole sets of boundaries.
What you could have is a nationally elected President. State elected Senators and sensible district elected House reps.
Another option is to make the senate the electoral college. At least that way the President has one part automatically behind them.
a completely inoffensive name
11-12-2012, 23:15
While this would fix some of the inequities, I'm of the mind that we need fewer reps. The more people making the decisions, the less responsibility any of them take for the bad ones.
The accountability comes from the ability of constituents to make a grassroots change if their needs are not met. The problem with a small number of reps is that it allows reps to distance themselves and bank on using 10 million dollars of campaign contributions to buy advertisements all the way to victory. It is much more difficult for a grassroots effort to switch a district of 700,000 people than it is for a district of 125,000-250,000.
Even if there was 10,000 members in the HoR, if a district containing only 100,000 Republican people has a rep who voted for Obamacare, you can be assured that Tea Party challengers would arise and have a good shot at removing the incumbent. And vice versa.
How far would you like to take the small # logic? 1 Rep for every 1,000,000 people? 5,000,000 people? Why not just remove the HoR and keep the Senate? The HoR should be the house of many and the Senate should be the house of the elite.
How far would you like to take the small # logic? 1 Rep for every 1,000,000 people? 5,000,000 people? Why not just remove the HoR and keep the Senate? The HoR should be the house of many and the Senate should be the house of the elite.
The HoR is the house of the people, the Senate is the house of the states.
Right now the size of a basic HoR district is determined by the size of the least populous states. Not sure the exact statistical formula, but looking at the census numbers it looks about right, the states with 1 district range from 563K and 989K population, and Cali gets 53 seats with 37253K people (66:1 to 37:1 ratios). Too many Reps dilute the senatorial electoral votes, violating the compromises limiting the power of the large states. My desire to see a smaller HoR is not based on this though, it's based on my work experience with large projects. ~D
Papewaio
11-13-2012, 00:04
Aren't the large states automatically limited because they have equal weight to the small states in the Senate?
I don't see why HoR needs to be hobbled too.
In sports you have a referee. Why not have an independent ref for drawing up the zones?Because there's no such thing.
That said, I find the idea that a party can redistrict their way into disproportionate representation distasteful, for a number of reasons. Much like my worry about a popular/electoral college split, I don't like situations that deligitimize our system of government. An election should not only be fair, it should appear to be fair. (I'd go into accounting concepts such as "goodwill" and "reputation" but I'm pretty sure you've taken some Econ classes in your time.)I guess I don't mind it for much the same reasons as the electoral college- the system is working as designed. The states' determine their districts. If a state's voters think they're doing it unfairly, they can find themselves representatives who will do it differently.
The accountability comes from the ability of constituents to make a grassroots change if their needs are not met. So let's concentrate more power in the hands of local and state governments where their representatives are better able to represent their voters. The opposite, the federal government dictating to states how they determine their representatives, strikes me as the wrong approach.
Aren't the large states automatically limited because they have equal weight to the small states in the Senate?
I don't see why HoR needs to be hobbled too.
In the legislative branch, yes. This limitation is included in the executive branch by the electoral college, with each state getting 2 votes for their senators. Greatly increasing the number of representatives will diminish this effect. I'm not sure the founding fathers expected the vast disparity between the largest and smallest states though, and the winner-takes-all approach allows for gaming the election.
There are lots of problems with the presidential election process, and much of it starts with the party primary system. This is controlled by the parties themselves, gives fairly middling states too much control of the process, and do not generate the best/most electable candidates.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2012, 03:17
Just curious: say you're an American who's registering to vote and fill in that you intend to vote Democrat (which would be required to participate in primaries in some states, if I understand this correctly) would that sort of data be gathered and accessible to say, the people who draw up the constituency boundaries?
Yes, such statistics would be available (they're not recored in all states). All states keep numerical records by polling precinct and, usually, by county as well. All of that material is considered in the one-per-decade gerrmandering....er alterations made to voting districts.
a completely inoffensive name
11-13-2012, 03:32
The HoR is the house of the people, the Senate is the house of the states.
Right now the size of a basic HoR district is determined by the size of the least populous states. Not sure the exact statistical formula, but looking at the census numbers it looks about right, the states with 1 district range from 563K and 989K population, and Cali gets 53 seats with 37253K people (66:1 to 37:1 ratios). Too many Reps dilute the senatorial electoral votes, violating the compromises limiting the power of the large states. My desire to see a smaller HoR is not based on this though, it's based on my work experience with large projects. ~D
Well, who do you think the states will choose for the prestigious Senate seats? Of course, the fact that the Senate is determined by the states is great, and I would love that (repeal the 17th amendment), but it seems naive to ignore why the populist Progressives in the early 1900s pushed the 17th amendment in the first place.
The issue you bring up about the senatorial electoral votes isn't really an issue. The electoral college was accepted as being more or less favorable towards the populated states from the beginning. Do you think that the small states at the time, did not account for population differences on the EC? Besides that, the EC for the first 20 years of the US was not even about the people, the electors really were the elite educated class. Jacksonian democracy changed the way we view most of our institutions.
So let's concentrate more power in the hands of local and state governments where their representatives are better able to represent their voters. The opposite, the federal government dictating to states how they determine their representatives, strikes me as the wrong approach.
There is no disagreement between us on this issue. I want people to focus more on their state and local levels, you can look at my previous posts in this thread and the 2012 election thread if you haven't.
What I am talking about with the # of HoR members is the issue of the Federal government not being responsive to the wishes of the public. The Federal government should be both limited in what it does for people but also effective in providing what is demanded from it (that is also beyond the ability of state govs to do).
Well, who do you think the states will choose for the prestigious Senate seats? Of course, the fact that the Senate is determined by the states is great, and I would love that (repeal the 17th amendment), but it seems naive to ignore why the populist Progressives in the early 1900s pushed the 17th amendment in the first place.
The states would decide how the Senate seats are filled. State legislature, governor appointment, etc. The 17th solved a problem with deadlocked seats, but a provision for temporary appointments could be made to handle this. Progressives sought to clear up "bought" seats, but are popular elections any better?
The issue you bring up about the senatorial electoral votes isn't really an issue. The electoral college was accepted as being more or less favorable towards the populated states from the beginning. Do you think that the small states at the time, did not account for population differences on the EC? Besides that, the EC for the first 20 years of the US was not even about the people, the electors really were the elite educated class. Jacksonian democracy changed the way we view most of our institutions.
I disagree, the senatorial electoral votes have a huge impact. Bush 43 exploited the extra 2 votes in the western states, this is how he got elected without the popular vote.
a completely inoffensive name
11-14-2012, 06:12
The states would decide how the Senate seats are filled. State legislature, governor appointment, etc. The 17th solved a problem with deadlocked seats, but a provision for temporary appointments could be made to handle this. Progressives sought to clear up "bought" seats, but are popular elections any better?
I agree with everything here, the point I am simply making is that don't be surprised that the bought politicians under the old system are more... blatant with their contempt, yeah?
The follow up point I want to make to this is that, the 17th amendment was a Federal cure for a statewide problem. If people don't like how Senators are chosen (or not chosen due to deadlock) their prerogative is to get involved with their state government, not to muck up the nice system we had.
I disagree, the senatorial electoral votes have a huge impact. Bush 43 exploited the extra 2 votes in the western states, this is how he got elected without the popular vote.
Naaaah, you can't point to the minimum 3 votes many Western states have as the key to Bush 43's victory. Bush 43 won because Gore was a liberal coming from a popular administration who ran a weak campaign. He won big in all the states that didn't matter and lost barely in the state that did.
Naaaah, you can't point to the minimum 3 votes many Western states have as the key to Bush 43's victory. Bush 43 won because Gore was a liberal coming from a popular administration who ran a weak campaign. He won big in all the states that didn't matter and lost barely in the state that did.
I won't argue that Gore ran a weak campaign. But Bush won 30 states over Gore's 20+DC, that's a 36 vote swing in the electoral college.
The Lurker Below
11-15-2012, 23:02
No way man! Leave the EC be. I'd rather repeal the 12th amendment and saddle Obama with VP Romney.
FWIW, the numbers have been crunched, and it seems that Dem house candidates received approx. 1 million more votes than Repub house candidates. Yielding a Repub majority. Apparently this has happened 5 times in the last century, so it's a bit of an anomaly (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/03/121203taco_talk_hertzberg). But one that may become increasingly common, at least in the short term.
This year, as usual, “people” wanted one party to run the whole show. That party was the Democrats. Republican House candidates won more seats, but Democratic House candidates won more votes—in the aggregate, about a million more.
For one party to win a majority of House seats with a minority of votes is a relatively rare occurrence. It has now happened five times in the past hundred years. In 1914 and 1942, the Democrats were the beneficiaries. In 1952, 1996, and this year, it was the Republicans’ turn to get lucky, and their luck is likely to hold for many election cycles to come. Gerrymandering routinely gets blamed for such mismatches, but that’s only part of the story. Far more important than redistricting is just plain districting: because so many Democrats are city folk, large numbers of Democratic votes pile up redundantly in overwhelmingly one-sided districts. Even having district lines drawn by neutral commissions instead of by self-serving politicians wouldn’t do much to alter this built-in structural bias.
Strike For The South
11-27-2012, 01:51
I tried to reply to this thread with a level head and then I remembred the urban rot gut that is Charlie Rangel. This memory prompted me to pass out
The fact we let our legislators have any say at all in how the borders a drawn is the insane part in all of this
Can we change that first?
a completely inoffensive name
11-27-2012, 03:14
I tried to reply to this thread with a level head and then I remembred the urban rot gut that is Charlie Rangel. This memory prompted me to pass out
The fact we let our legislators have any say at all in how the borders a drawn is the insane part in all of this
Can we change that first?
California passed a proposition back in 2010 to have state district lines drawn by an independent group of people, not by the politicians. You should keep an eye on that if you want to see if the concept of districts can even be salvaged.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2012, 23:53
I feel like the only real way to prevent gerrymandering is to decrease the number of representatives. No one talks about it with the senate, right?
a completely inoffensive name
12-05-2012, 01:19
I feel like the only real way to prevent gerrymandering is to decrease the number of representatives. No one talks about it with the senate, right?
Then what is the purpose of the HoR?
I feel like the only real way to prevent gerrymandering is to decrease the number of representatives. No one talks about it with the senate, right?
Or do the exact opposite and allow it to grow. One rep per, say, 300000 people.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.