Post #255,054
5/11/06 10:52:37 AM
|
Permanently at large congress members could be good
One step on the way to one form of proportionate voting. Which could help make a third (and fourth, and fith) party viable.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,077
5/11/06 12:52:24 PM
|
I don't like that idea.
Representatives are supposed to be close to the people. That's why they're elected every 2 years. That closeness is also the result of having rather small districts (compared to Senators). Turning the House into a collection of people who represent their entire state would fundamentally change the connection between the people and their representative. The House shouldn't be a 2 year Senate - it has a different role. Each person gets to vote for 1 person to represent them in the House. If we're going to change that, we need to think long and hard about it and understand the ramifications. E.g. greater representation by smaller parties is good, up to a point. We don't want to be at the mercy of fringe parties the way many parliamentary democracies are.
North Dakota has an "at large" representative in the House because each state must have at least 1 representative. So s/he represents the whole state, and each voter gets to choose 1 person. There's no problem there.
But if Utah has 3 representatives tied to districts, and 1 who is "at large", then Utah voters will effectively have 2 representatives in the House. That's fundamentally unfair as no other House voter in another state would have that.
A much fairer way to expand the House than Davis's plan is to say the new number is 437, DC gets 1 seat, and the other 436 are divided up after the 2010 census based on population (using the existing rules but making the divisor 436 rather than 435, and accounting for ND and any other state that must have 1 representative). That's also when DC gets its seat. Then there would be no new issues about redistricting Utah and at-large-ness, etc. (The decennial redistricting issues would be there, but it wouldn't be a new problem.)
If there's still a worry the 436th seat going to Utah and the Utah democrat being squeezed out, well, them's the breaks. It sounds like it's a potential problem whether or not DC gets a seat.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #255,082
5/11/06 1:21:31 PM
|
An at large must pander to the strident majority
not a good thing, thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,101
5/11/06 2:07:01 PM
|
? That's not the way it works in DC.
The DC [link|http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/members.html|City Council] has 8 "wards" (districts) and in addition 4 "at large" seats and a separate Chair that is also elected "at large". AFAIK, the only Republicans and Independents on the Council have "at large" seats. I understand it works like this: Substantial (political) minorities that are geographically dispersed have a chance for an at-large seat when they would have no chance in a compact district. As such, if a state only had at-large seats, then minority views still might be squeezed out. In other words, they need to pander to a dispersed, strident minority. :-) The [link|http://www.abfa.com/ogc/tit4.htm#401|DC Charter] has this to say about the Council's organization: SEC. 401. [D.C. Code 1-221] (a) There is established a Council of the District of Columbia; and the members of the Council shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District.
(b) (1) The Council established under subsection (a) [of this section] shall consist of thirteen members elected on a partisan basis. The Chairman and four members shall be elected at large in the District, and eight members shall be elected one each from the eight election wards established[,] from time to time, under the District of Columbia Election Act [An Act To regulate the election of delegates representing the District of Columbia to national political conventions, and for other purposes, approved August 12, 1955 (69 Stat. 699; D.C. Code 1-1301 et seq.)]. The term of office of the members of the Council shall be four years, except as provided in paragraph (3) [of this subsection], and shall begin at noon on January 2 of the year following their election.
(2) In the case of the first election held for the office of member of the Council after the effective date of this title [January 2, 1975], not more than two of the at-large members (excluding the Chairman) shall be nominated by the same political party. Thereafter, a political party may nominate a number of candidates for the office of at-large member of the Council equal to one less than the total number of at-large members (excluding the Chairman) to be elected in such election. Emphasis added. Being a creature of the US Congress, the DC government is a special case. Most people wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on who they can vote for to represent them. But it has the advantage of prohibiting total control of the Council by one political party. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #255,094
5/11/06 1:50:13 PM
|
I don't like it, either
For much the same reasons Another Scott stated. However, the prospoect of Utah getting "DeLayed" is also problematic. I do agree that this is a different problem from DC getting representation in the House (I believe that DC should also get a full set of Senators). How to keep gerrymandering? Well, on solution I've heard is to allow a comupter to draw approximately rectangular districts based on census figures. The computer draws three such district maps, and the state House selects one of the three. Period. Lather, rinse, repeat every ten years.
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #255,105
5/11/06 2:21:00 PM
|
who programs the computer?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,108
5/11/06 2:35:54 PM
|
adminiScott!
Just as long as it is not Diebold, and the source code is available for public (that's me, folks!) inspection, I don't much care.
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #255,111
5/11/06 3:08:55 PM
|
The algorithm would have to be public
The algorith used would have be public. And once that is done, it really doesn't matter who provides the program to the government, as the result will be tested by outside groups.
The real trick is writing up an algorithm that is fair, deterministic and effective. Fair in the sense that it doesn't bias the layout towards any party, that would be fairly easy. Deterministic in that given the same input map and population data it will always produce the same layout, making independent verification possible. Effective in that the district map would be understandable and simple.
Jay
|
Post #255,109
5/11/06 3:01:33 PM
|
Making them all at large might be OK
Making all members of the House at large might be a good idea. But I don't want a situation where Utah and Utah alone would have a different system for allocating it's seats. I can understand they don't want to realign the map outside the normal redistricting, so it might be the best short term solution. But as a permanent thing it would be unacceptable.
My ideal system would have two houses in Congress. One would be a nationwide district system, not tied to state borders. The second would be a party based house, where seats are allocated based on the percent of the vote the party got. I think that would provide a good balance between proportinal party representation and personal/geographic representation.
Jay
|
Post #255,112
5/11/06 3:09:53 PM
|
Don't tell me...you're an Engineer, right?
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #255,117
5/11/06 4:25:44 PM
|
Alaska is a perfect example of why that doesnt work
Whites are a large majority, natives are a large minority. The white folk actively dislike the native folks. The state lawmakers do their best to ensure that rural non-white alaska gets as few resources as possible. Now having only one congressman to ensure that all Alaskans are represented is currently held by Don Young a man who is married to a native. Once he quits or dies the other folks will get in. He also happens to be a Republican which has the white folk automatically vote for him. The new Senator appointed by her governor dad doesnt really give a rats ass about the rural native population. In states with large minorities an at large seat would have to pander to the majority leading to unfair treatment to the local minorities.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,130
5/11/06 5:13:17 PM
|
See Another Scott's comments about DC
If you have an at large vote for one spot, then it is just like having a very large district. Same benefits, same problems.
But if you have an at large vote for several spots, then large minorities will easily win one or more of those spots. If there are enough spots to vote for, then even small minorities have a good shot at it.
I happen to think that that's a good thing.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,142
5/11/06 6:26:53 PM
|
must be missing something
"But if you have an at large vote for several spots, then large minorities will easily win one or more of those spots. If there are enough spots to vote for, then even small minorities have a good shot at it." if by at large, meaning people accross a geographic area, the majority, not the minority will always get their person.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,152
5/11/06 7:02:46 PM
|
Yes, you must :-)
For the simplest version, suppose that we have 15 candidates running for 5 spots. And everyone can only vote for one person.
Then a candidate that can draw the support of 20% of the population will manage to get a spot.
By contrast suppose that we had 5 races with 3 candidates each. Then the candidate who has 20% support across the board doesn't have a hope in hell of winning unless that support is geographically concentrated.
Proportionate voting schemes get a lot more complex than this simple one, but the upshot (demonstrated in practice in every country where they are used) is that minorities - even small ones - manage to get represented roughly in proportion to their popular support. The result is that instead of 2 or 3 parties that all look the same, there are many parties, each going after a different demographic.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,157
5/11/06 8:50:10 PM
|
And then you can have NC's 12th Congressional district.
It looks like [link|http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum/NCSUM.HTM|this]. Known as the "I-85 district," the12th stretched 160 miles across the central Piedmont region of the State, for part of its length no wider than the freeway right-of-way. Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #255,163
5/11/06 9:29:47 PM
|
True dat, but...
with proportional voting schemes, gerrymandering goes away as an issue. So there is no incentive for creating such weird districts.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,159
5/11/06 9:06:10 PM
|
doesnt work that way
"For the simplest version, suppose that we have 15 candidates running for 5 spots. And everyone can only vote for one person." that means either the repotard or the demotard depending on the makeup of the demographics of the entire region. Example, the anchorage school district had 7 seats 5 district 2 at large. The 2 at large were all usually the fundie whackjobs which are the largest voting block in the city. The districts were representative of the neighborhoods, fundie whackjobs from the wealthier areas and die hard demos in the poorer minority neighborhoods.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,161
5/11/06 9:28:23 PM
|
How many "at large" votes does each person have?
If each person has 2, and each party is smart enough to only run 2 candidates, then the party with the most voters will get both slots.
But if each person can only vote for one at large position, then the party with an outright majority can't guarantee winning both positions.
In this form of proportional voting it is absolutely critical that either each person only have one vote, or that each person can vote multiple times for the same candidate. Otherwise the dynamics change a lot.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,201
5/12/06 8:29:52 AM
|
if you have 2 at large seats ya have one vote for both seats
way it works here in america is one position, one vote.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,256
5/12/06 12:00:35 PM
|
One vote per seat works IF
people are allowed to vote multiple times for the same person.
That's not how things are traditionally done in America, though.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,257
5/12/06 12:07:21 PM
|
You OBVIOUSLY don't live in Chicago....
jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
|
Post #255,208
5/12/06 8:48:40 AM
|
Problem is *not enough* at -large seats
If there's one seat, there's no difference between district and at-large. If there's two seats -- as in your example -- only the top two parties have a chance. Same as we've got now. I don't think the dynamics change significantly until you've got 5 or more at-large seats in one race.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #255,162
5/11/06 9:28:47 PM
|
Which is why I don't both house to be that way
Problems like the one you mention are exactly why I don't want both houses to be proportional distribution. But there are also advantages to a national proportional system. The most important being that it would much better represent the way people actually think, because it would give space for a lot more parties to work in.
Jay
|
Post #255,165
5/11/06 9:31:49 PM
|
Right now neither house has proportional distribution
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
