Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
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 would like a word with you....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.
"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.
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.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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 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.
no qualms
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
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.i.e. the Nebraska-Maine method
Originally Posted by :
eliminate the electoral college
eliminate the electoral college
Originally Posted by :
fuse both potential terms into one
fuse both potential terms into one
Originally Posted by :
mobocrasy
mobocrasy
Originally Posted by :
presidents who have no fear of the public after being voted in and stay in office for more than half a decade
presidents who have no fear of the public after being voted in and stay in office for more than half a decade
Originally Posted by :
endless parade of George W. Bush presidents
You guys are just running out of topics, aren't you?endless parade of George W. Bush presidents
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.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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.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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rstate_Compact
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?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
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.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.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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.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.
Is it not possible this nightmare scenario could happen under the present system.
It is also highly unlikely using Australia's votin system unless they preferred a Hitler or a Lenin.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.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.
What can a president do without the help of the Senate and the House?
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
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.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 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.
Details.
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.
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
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
Is your boundary commission that draws up constituencies essentially an arm of whoever controls the house or what??
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.\Is your boundary commission that draws up constituencies essentially an arm of whoever controls the house or what??
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.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?
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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.In most states the party that controls the Statehouse does the redistricting. This creates a rather straightforward set of incentives.
Note that this analysis 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
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 ofgerymandering redistricting, the Repubs maintained control. Whether you love or oppose the House Repubs, this is fairly obviously something that needs addressing.
Details.
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.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
Details.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
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.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.
* 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'.
And that is a state problem...not national.
Which is why I posted the WaPo breakdown of individual states ...
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."
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."
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 otherpropaganda facts are you going to amaze us with?
Now what other
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?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO