Here are some thoughts from Joel:
Well here are my thoughts on changes (improvements?) that could be made to the EC:
- Could we have national electors that would vote for the person who wins that national popular vote? These would be in addition to the existing 538 electors. How many would there be? One possible argument against is that it would effectively give a portion of the population more power than "one person, one vote".
- Each State still gets the two "Senator" votes, meaning that two votes go to the winner of the statewide popular vote
- Each congressional district still gets a single vote based on the popular vote within the district, with the following caveats:
With regard to Congressional Districts:
- Gerrymandering is outlawed (how?)
- District boundaries are not affected by State boundaries, meaning that all congressional districts would have to have, as closely as possible, the same population without respect to State borders. My questions regarding this are: Is there a good reason for congressional districts to be contained within States? What reason is there for it to continue? States already get electoral votes.
28 comments:
Everywhere I have mentioned this idea it has stopped discussion dead in its tracks. No one says a thing. It must be a great idea if no one challenges it, I guess.
:-)
Joel
Well as I have stated previously, I like the current system because we are a bunch of States that are United for mutual benefit. (ie like EU)
Not a single entity named the Country of USA... (ie like France)
As such I do not want the people who choose to live on the coasts and in the cities dominating our culture, laws, values, etc.
As the Liberals would say...
It is our diversity and the honoring of it that makes us stronger...
That includes the diversity between the city and rural citizens...
I don't see how my suggestions are counter to your concerns. My goal is only to make it fairer and less subject to the whims of one political party over another. I think the attempt in the link below is a good one.
Gerrymandering fixed?
I'm actually attempting to make it more logical than it currently is.
-each state has equal vote
-each person has as equal a vote as possible in the EC (and Congress)
-districts should be logical
-that the national vote should count for something (this item is negotiable)
Joel
Joel, Republicans, at least in MN, have long proposed that the Electors be chosen according to the popular vote in each Congressional District, with the two electors representing the STATE (the electors allocated according to the two Senators) go according to the popular vote state-wide. Apparently this is Constitutionally sound, but would require a change to the law in those states which now bind electors (29 of them) by statewide vote. I have no idea how that would impact the total Electoral College, but I'm guessing that the makeup of the US House and US Senate would offer a clue. I think it might make us in "flyover country" more likely to get some campaign attention (that's the good news and the bad news).
Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it's always a fight. What we SHOULD be doing is taking the politics out of it to the degree possible. Mathematically it is possible to place any number of center-of-area points, evenly distributed over a total space. For example, dividing Minnesota into 8 equal geographic spaces, with a point at the center of each. THEN, it is equally mathematically possible to work outward from that center point, by population, until the equal distribution of population is achieved in the most compact shape possible. ALL done by impartial math. The only thing remaining would be the "sanity test" of keeping State Senate seats within Congressional Districts as near as possible, and trying to respect municipal boundaries, then re-running the math with these "boundary conditions." No political advantage to either party. I'm not sure math gives the "right" answer, but it would certainly be worth a look.
jerry, did you read the link I posted? I think that addresses your last comment, does it not? It even accounts for the "sanity test", I believe.
Joel
Maybe I am missing something but I think these 2 statements are at odds.
"each state has equal vote & each person has as equal vote"
I mean currently Cal gets 55 votes to MN's 10...
Wiki EC
As for gerrymandering, that is an issue for each state to decide within the broad national guidance. It is their state and citizens.
"It is their state and citizens."
Yes, but the State would already have the two guaranteed votes that go to the winner of the statewide vote.
Yes, MN has 10, and it's clear who 8 of them are representing. But who are the other 2 votes representing?
So-
The individual States get their votes (2 apiece)
The districts get theirs (1 apiece)
Joel
Joel, thank you! I had the algorithm already written for the first but the second involves some nasty second-order partial differential equations, so I am glad some wizard actually has it down. And the argument against, that it ignores "communities of interest" in favor of compactness, I think misses the point. When Mississippi was required to create a majority-minority (black) Congressional district up in the Delta, a white guy won the election, while the resulting majority-majority (i.e. white) district next to it elected a black man! Race is not a "community of interest," or at least should not be. Folks in the Delta are mostly farmers of one sort or another and chose a white Republican farmer, while the white urban and college folks were better represented by a black Democrat (professor, I believe). This type of mathematically "pure" and objective redistricting would help rid us of this "special interest" mentality that keeps us from working together for the betterment of all.
And I still say the biggest problem is the belief of so many that if we went out on election day and pulled the lever for the "right" Presidential candidate, we can kick back in front of the TV and all our problems are solved. It tells me that a) not enough people are really paying attention, b) that the politicians we CAN influence-- city, state-- can hide in the shadows and affect us more, and c) that the federal government simply has too much power and control that people believe they can and SHOULD solve all our problems.
Ahhh. I think I get it now...
We would be voting by district instead of by State. With a slight weighting on State. (ie 2 extra by State)
I have the same issue with it... We are not a Union of many Districts... We are a Union of many States.
"We are not a Union of many Districts... We are a Union of many States."
Then we don't need the House of Representatives.
Joel
"We would be voting by district instead of by State."
We would be doing both.
Joel
jerry, I find this hard to believe, but I think we made have found something we agree on.
I want the fairest system possible, even if that means my position doesn't always win.
Joel
Let's just keep it quiet, shall we? :-)
But feel free to support the Republican legislature when they bring it up, along with election law reforms.
That will depend on their specific proposals. :-)
Joel
Gee, something else we might agree on? Or will you be worrying about being "fair" and not "disenfranchising" dead people, non-citizens, disqualified felons, and non-existent individuals?
I will worry about poll taxes masquerading as Voter ID and the scrubbing of voter registration rolls. You have your concerns, but there is scant evidence that they exist in any meaningful way.
But that is not the topic of this thread.
Joel
Well, I have observed that topics often get "hijacked" here, but I will leave it to our host to decide where we go. I think NOT "scrubbing" the voter rolls is criminal, and fraud waiting (and expected) to happen. And the absence of proof is not proof of absence. You cannot find what you do not look for.
Very well.
"I think NOT "scrubbing" the voter rolls is criminal, and fraud waiting (and expected) to happen. And the absence of proof is not proof of absence. You cannot find what you do not look for."
The problem comes when properly registered, legal, living voters get scrubbed without their knowledge. Being registered to vote should be the default status for every legal U.S. citizen of voting age and there should be severe penalties for anyone who removes a legal voter from the registration rolls.
Joel
I would like to agree with you, and I probably do if I accept YOUR definition of "scrubbing." I believe that people who do not take the very minimal trouble to register should not be on the registered voter rolls. I believe it is essential that non-residents and dead people be scrubbed from the rolls, which some Secretaries of State seem disinclined to do, actually enabling voter fraud rather than preventing it. Also, if you haven't voted in (I think 4 years in MN), your name is dropped and you must re-register. There should be severe penalties for removing a legal voter from the rolls, but there should be similar penalties (on Secretaries of State) for NOT scrubbing the voter rolls of ineligible voters.
What is needed here is a combination: First the voter rolls must be scrubbed and cleaned (identifying "challenged" voters correctly, and NOT (contrary to law) permitting them to simply say otherwise (as SOS Simon illegally ordered in the last election). Second would be a strict Voter ID law, preferably with electronic poll books to prevent fraudulent and double voting. We could still allow same-day registration with provisional ballots, but I would like to see early voting eliminated in favor of strict absentee rules. "October" and even "Friday night" surprises have become normal in elections.
Those who claim that election integrity laws are not needed are arguing that they aren't needed because there is no cheating in elections. I say let's go ahead and put those laws in place and if no attempts to cheat are found, both sides should be satisfied. BTW, this year we were required, quite reasonably, to record any case in which a voter was turned away and could not vote. We had one, a young man who "forgot" his drivers license (to same day register) and "had to get to work" rather than going home to get it. Everyone else was accommodated under the law.
"BTW, this year we were required, quite reasonably, to record any case in which a voter was turned away and could not vote. We had one, a young man who "forgot" his drivers license (to same day register) and "had to get to work" rather than going home to get it. Everyone else was accommodated under the law."
So, assuming this young man was trying to vote fraudulently, the system successfully kept him from doing so.
"I believe that people who do not take the very minimal trouble to register should not be on the registered voter rolls."
Is it minimal everywhere? And other countries have "default" registration. I don't see why it would be an issue.
Joel
Actually, it never crossed my mind that he might be trying to vote fraudulently, though the question was asked "is he walking to work?" If he did not have his driver's license...? The license was only necessary because he had not pre-registered, but if we had Voter ID it would have been, and I count that a good thing. Otherwise, someone else could have walked in and claimed to be him. Even if he was dead. Sure, it "never happens," but it COULD, could it not? Why not prevent it with certainty?
Yes, the effort it takes to register is minimal everywhere, as far as I know. In MN, you can register same day. We supposedly have "motor voter" where you are automatically registered when you get a DL. If you apply for an absentee ballot, you can register with your application, and anybody is allowed to vote absentee now.
One of my big concerns is having people vote while being completely uninformed. I was disappointed in myself because I didn't know which Soil and Water Commissioner candidate to vote for, but I know lots of people are guessing much further up the ballot. My thought is that if you didn't even make the effort to register, how much effort did you make to study the candidates and issues? Or did you just succumb to some slick (probably negative) TV ad?
Regarding your last paragraph, it is not a requirement for a person to cast a vote in every race. I researched my ballot and every 'race' that had choices so that I could vote knowledgeably. I take voting very seriously and realize that I am fortunate to live in a state where one of the political parties isn't successful in their attempts to put up roadblocks to my right to vote.
Previous comment is mine.
Joel
You are not the uninformed voter of which I was speaking. I wish everyone would take it as seriously as you do. The only reason I didn't vote for Soil and Water Commission was because I could not find any information about the race (until after I had cast my vote on Friday).
Unfortunately, I live in a state where one of the political parties actively disenfranchises me by allowing-- some would even say encouraging-- all sorts of voter fraud.
Though I posted this link on my newest post, it probably belongs here also.
Apparently it is the States who decide how to allocate electoral votes and only 2 are not "winner takes all"... So why do you think MN is still "winner take all"?
"Unfortunately, I live in a state where one of the political parties actively disenfranchises me by allowing-- some would even say encouraging-- all sorts of voter fraud."
Nonsense.
Joel
Joel, you are denying reality again. When private citizens have to sue the DFL Secretary of State to force him to follow the law....
John, if MN were NOT "winner take all" then Hillary would have won at most 7 electoral votes in MN, not 10. You can easily see which party would be disadvantaged by allowing allocation by CD, and understand why the other party keeps proposing it.
Post a Comment