http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0

I must say that this is a surprise that the case is even before the Supreme Court. Should voting districts be based upon eligible voters or everyone (Children, disenfranchised felons, illegal aliens et. al.) that is in a district? As much as I feel that the representative is responsible for all in his/her district, the districts need to be based upon all who can legally vote.

To give more representation based on those who cannot vote is to imbalance the electorate.

A felon who is disenfranchised is that for a reason of their own choosing.
A child get vote at 18 (Amendment).
Illegal aliens get the vote when naturalized.

To base voting representation upon something that is not yet achieved is "sliding the scale" prematurely.

We use registered voters over here by and large. The difference being that our constituency boundaries are drawn up by an independent, politically neutral commission rather than a cynical political elite who have been rigging it for their own party's benefit for generations. Frankly, there are far worse problems with the drawing of district boundaries than this one.

The assumption here seems to be that the change will automatically help the Republicans. It may well do, but that's not necessarily the case. The easiest way to even out the disparity might be to take clumps of rural voters and place them into urban districts where they'd certainly dilute the Democratic vote but probably not by enough to change the result in the seat. This will then just create even greater opportunity for politicians to draw stupid boundaries that don't make sense, triggering a great jamboree of gerrymandering.

bbauska wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0

I must say that this is a surprise that the case is even before the Supreme Court. Should voting districts be based upon eligible voters or everyone (Children, disenfranchised felons, illegal aliens et. al.) that is in a district? As much as I feel that the representative is responsible for all in his/her district, the districts need to be based upon all who can legally vote.

To give more representation based on those who cannot vote is to imbalance the electorate.

A felon who is disenfranchised is that for a reason of their own choosing.
A child get vote at 18 (Amendment).
Illegal aliens get the vote when naturalized.

To base voting representation upon something that is not yet achieved is "sliding the scale" prematurely.

It is a bit of a surprise as the Constitution is crystal clear on this for the Federal districting for the House:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 wrote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

"Persons", not "Citizens" and certainly not "Voters". "free" meant non-slaves, and I believe that the 3/5 rule is now moot following Emancipation. Not sure where untaxed Indians come into it - I suppose that's the deal with many reservations?

I understand that this case is about the Texas Senate, but of course there is the rub - If the "equal protection clause" applies, but can't override the explicit use of total persons at a Federal level, would that not be inconsistent? And so potentially unequal?

The way I see it, a representative would usually have case work that comes from non-voters. Also, all of those children who are citizens will become voters later (and some will do during the period before the next apportionment). The real distortion to equal weighting of votes is the use of the first past the post system of elections, which means that differential turnout and the number of districts that are "safe" or "swing" has much more of an effect on whether a voter in one place has more or less influence than a voter elsewhere.

If you really want all votes to count equally, then you would need a proportional system, which would be completely based on the number of actual voters, rather than the electorate in total or the population. But again, that would not be in any way consistent with the clause in the USC above.

[additional as I cross-posted with my compatriot...]

Sass is correct that in the UK we work on voters rather than population, but that was only at a local level until recently. For the Parliamentary elections the current boundaries were based on population rather than the size of the electorate. The boundary review that was carried out a few years ago and then dropped was the first to use electorate instead. So if that is resurrected (or, as I suspect due to the passage of time, another review is carried out), that would be the first time for the General Election that follows.

The EU base parliamentary seats for each country based on population rather than electorate - although it is regressional so larger countries are under-represented. Within the UK, our multi-member regions are now allocated seats from the UK total based on electorate.

Well, the Constitution mandates that for allocating House of Representative seats be done by counting all persons. So there is that precedent. Also elected officials do not just represent voters they represent everyone in a district. Voters have the power to elect, but that does not mean that non- voters have no interest in who represents them . Let's say one area has a large number of children versus another area that has a large number of retired persons. The area with a large number of children is probably going to have interests regarding child care , education , and similar issues while the area with retired persons is going to be more concerned about health care and other issues affecting the elderly. But if we did districts by counting voters then that retiree area would have their interests disproportionately reflected because they have a higher voter concentration. And of course it may be difficult to get an accurate count of eligible voters.

I am not sure why you think it would be surprising that this would go the Supreme Court given that I believe all states allocate district by counting persons not voters. Just another attempt by conservatives to help Republicans gain an advantage in state elections.

It should be pointed out that there are perfectly valid arguments of fairness in favour of using voters rather than residents. It can be seen quite clearly if you look at the situation in the UK. There's a clear bias in favour of Labour here because their seats tend to be smaller (in terms of the number of registered voters). The result of the last election didn't necessarily reflect it so much because there were specific circumstances as regards the outright collapse of Labour in Scotland and the Lib Dems in the SW which skewed things, but for the 2 or 3 elections prior to that it was really quite stark. The Tories needed an 11 point lead to form a majority whereas Labour could do it with a 3 point lead.

Now, it should be said that this was by no means all down to unequal boundaries, an awful lot more was in play. However, it is true to say that Tory seats had about 6% more voters in them than Labour seats did, and that there was, and is, an increasing trend of population flight away from the poorer post-industrial seats in the north which are Labour strongholds and towards more affluent regions in the SE, which mostly vote Tory. I think there's definitely a good case for equalising the number of voters in each seat to iron out the inherent bias. It wouldn't be a magic bullet though and probably won't help the Tories as much as they think it might because much of the perceived bias is the result of differential turnouts as opposed to size of the constituencies per se.

Sassenach wrote:Now, it should be said that this was by no means all down to unequal boundaries, an awful lot more was in play. However, it is true to say that Tory seats had about 6% more voters in them than Labour seats did, and that there was, and is, an increasing trend of population flight away from the poorer post-industrial seats in the north which are Labour strongholds and towards more affluent regions in the SE, which mostly vote Tory.

Of course, the longer between boundary reviews, the more out of date they will be.

I think there's definitely a good case for equalising the number of voters in each seat to iron out the inherent bias. It wouldn't be a magic bullet though and probably won't help the Tories as much as they think it might because much of the perceived bias is the result of differential turnouts as opposed to size of the constituencies per se.

I think the combination of differential turnout and voter distribution is a greater factor - those same urban Labour strongholds have a much lower turnout than the affluent rural and suburban seats. And the vote distribution differs - there are a lot of Tory seats where Labour is a very poor third (behind the Liberals), but in most Labour seats the Tories pick up a decent number of votes.

On the other hand the issue we have at the moment with voter registration (that a lot of people will be dropping off the register with the change in procedures) means that there will still be a bias, but a hidden one.

PR would eliminate bias in terms of voter distribution, seat size, differential turnout etc.

There are other considerations than who votes (or who can vote). One is that virtually everyone contributes through taxes in some way, even many children - VAT being the tax that affects most people. Another is that the government provides services to people regardless of whether they vote / register - children get schooling, social care, considered when looking at housing and benefits etc. A further one is that an MP's case load will include non-voters, and they are not supposed to avoid or do less for such constituents.

These factors do count against forms of PR, of course.

There are other considerations than who votes (or who can vote). One is that virtually everyone contributes through taxes in some way, even many children - VAT being the tax that affects most people. Another is that the government provides services to people regardless of whether they vote / register - children get schooling, social care, considered when looking at housing and benefits etc. A further one is that an MP's case load will include non-voters, and they are not supposed to avoid or do less for such constituents.

I'm not convinced that these points are actually relevant. It's not like non-voters are denied representation after all, just that the particular representative that they end up having is determined by the number of voters in a particular area as opposed to the number of people. Divvying up the seats according to registered voters is not unfair on non-voters.

I am thinking more about the scope of an MP's responsibilities and impact. It is not just about voting, it's about who/what they represent as part of their constituency.

I think that within the issues with FPTP, especially as there is the strong link to a specific area per MP, it is mere tinkering to move from population to electorate and not accounting for the other factors (and over time the "bias" in the system may go all kinds of ways).

PR is preferable overall, but there is still the issue that an MP represents, and so has to deal with work on behalf of, more than just the voters in their constituency.

And if an MP has a lot of non-voters compared to others, and as a result a lot more casework, then that does affect the voters and non-voters in his constituency if he does not have time & resources to do it all as well as an MP who has very few non-voters.

Of course, there are other factors in caseload for MPs, such as levels of deprivation, local situations etc etc.

I take your point, but at the same time I don't really think that the duties of an MP are especially more onerous if they represent an inner-city or rural seat. Yes, the bias may well change over time (it favoured the Tories back in the 50s), but that's no reason not to equalise things now. There are of course wider issues with FPTP, but again that's no reason to avoid making the system as fair as we can within the constraints that exist.

I can't really get away from the fact that you're not a disinterested observer here. Labour is the beneficiary of the current system and you're an active member of the Labour party. I think we're both agreed that constituency size is only a small part of the apparent bias in the system so not worth worrying excessively over, but nevertheless there is a clear bias and it's hard to justify maintaining it.

Love how we've totally hijacked this thread btw...

edit: we cross-posted after your own edit so I'll just add this:

And if an MP has a lot of non-voters compared to others, and as a result a lot more casework, then that does affect the voters and non-voters in his constituency if he does not have time & resources to do it all as well as an MP who has very few non-voters.

The average difference in the number of registered voters (and as such the number of non-voters) is roughly 6%. Not an enormous amount in the grand scheme of things but significant when you consider the potentially fine margins in a general election. It's not going to mean massive differences in workload though, and in any case MPs have staff who deal with most of this kind of work.

Sassenach wrote:I take your point, but at the same time I don't really think that the duties of an MP are especially more onerous if they represent an inner-city or rural seat.

I think it's likely that the complexity of issues that impact people in deprived areas would create more work over time.

Yes, the bias may well change over time (it favoured the Tories back in the 50s), but that's no reason not to equalise things now. There are of course wider issues with FPTP, but again that's no reason to avoid making the system as fair as we can within the constraints that exist.

But perhaps all that does it to make the system a little better and just put off the decision to make it properly fair. Later you address the interest one might have as a supporter or member of a party in keeping the system as it is. The real issue is that for the two main parties FPTP give both a massive boost, as generally it means that they are over-represented compared to other parties and as such when one is in power the other becomes the natural place for people who lose faith in them.

I can't really get away from the fact that you're not a disinterested observer here. Labour is the beneficiary of the current system and you're an active member of the Labour party. I think we're both agreed that constituency size is only a small part of the apparent bias in the system so not worth worrying excessively over, but nevertheless there is a clear bias and it's hard to justify maintaining it.

And while you are not an active member of the Conservative party you have worked for a Conservative MP and can't claim to be completely disinterested either.

I think that as it's small, and would be a change, it is on the side of those who want(ed) to change it to justify the change, not the other way around. And while I do understand the reasoning, I really don't believe it is that simple.

Love how we've totally hijacked this thread btw...

I blame Obama.

Well we are talking about the same issue, just a different jurisdiction. In the US I expect the questions are the same. I think it is complicated by the fact that the Federal level is mandated by the Constitution to be based on "Persons" rather than voters, and so there would need to be a good reason why that should not apply at a State level.

But also, the fact that with gerrymandering and an even more strong 2-party system than we have, the distortions in the US electoral system are even greater, making the people/electorate/voter distinction even less of the problem.

And while you are not an active member of the Conservative party you have worked for a Conservative MP and can't claim to be completely disinterested either.

I voted Conservative (much good it did in Sheffield Central), but I'd like to think I'm no partisan Tory. Certainly I wouldn't support legislation just because it politically benefits the Conservative party. For example, I'm not really in favour of the Trade Union Bill. Some of it is fine, but it strikes me there's a lot of stuff in there which is very cynical, designed not so much to solve a problem (which doesn't actually exist if we're honest) as to restrict Labour funding. That's obviously a completely different issue to the subject of this thread, but it should illustrate that I view these questions on their merits.

Sassenach wrote:

And while you are not an active member of the Conservative party you have worked for a Conservative MP and can't claim to be completely disinterested either.

I voted Conservative (much good it did in Sheffield Central), but I'd like to think I'm no partisan Tory. Certainly I wouldn't support legislation just because it politically benefits the Conservative party. For example, I'm not really in favour of the Trade Union Bill. Some of it is fine, but it strikes me there's a lot of stuff in there which is very cynical, designed not so much to solve a problem (which doesn't actually exist if we're honest) as to restrict Labour funding. That's obviously a completely different issue to the subject of this thread, but it should illustrate that I view these questions on their merits.

I'm sure you do. After the election I was in the pub with a couple of Tory voters who were bemoaning the Gove moves to replace the Human Rights Act with the "British Bill of Rights". But they still were Tories and this was stated policy long before May 2015.

I have opposed measures by the Labour government and some policies (I disagree with Trident renewal, I opposed Iraq), but again that does not stop me being a Labour supporter. Just an open-minded one at times. Yes, we do exist. I expect we will see a lot of people who disagree with party policy over the next few years.

And yes, the TU Bill is a travesty, but not for the funding issue. The demands on ballots are already onerous, but now add more that would never apply in any other democratic organisation in the UK. And the social media clauses and the need to provide lists of people who will be involved in peaceful and lawful actions are attacks on individual liberties. I see your former boss David Davis has similar concerns.

What really annoys me is that this was supposed to be the Lobbying Bill that reduces the influence and secrecy around political lobbying, but it hardly touches on it.

For me I just don't see that there's a problem with trade union militancy that needs to be legislated against. We lose fewer days to strikes these days than at any point since Victoria was on the throne, so it's difficult to argue that this is a priority.

But I raised this one in particular because it can be construed as a political attack against Labour specifically. The boundary review could also be seen in that way, but it's different in my opinion because there is a legitimate fairness issue that ought to be addressed.

Of course, the current bill will no doubt be heavily amended before it ever becomes law. The government seem to have an approach where they raise lots of scary stuff in draft legislation that they don't have any intention of actually carrying out, giving them an opportunity to water it down and then claim that they're listening to concerns after the fact. We see it time and again, most recently with the tax credits thing.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html?_r=0

I must say that this is a surprise that the case is even before the Supreme Court. Should voting districts be based upon eligible voters or everyone (Children, disenfranchised felons, illegal aliens et. al.) that is in a district? As much as I feel that the representative is responsible for all in his/her district, the districts need to be based upon all who can legally vote.

To give more representation based on those who cannot vote is to imbalance the electorate.

A felon who is disenfranchised is that for a reason of their own choosing.
A child get vote at 18 (Amendment).
Illegal aliens get the vote when naturalized.

To base voting representation upon something that is not yet achieved is "sliding the scale" prematurely.

It is a bit of a surprise as the Constitution is crystal clear on this for the Federal districting for the House:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 wrote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

"Persons", not "Citizens" and certainly not "Voters". "free" meant non-slaves, and I believe that the 3/5 rule is now moot following Emancipation. Not sure where untaxed Indians come into it - I suppose that's the deal with many reservations?

I understand that this case is about the Texas Senate, but of course there is the rub - If the "equal protection clause" applies, but can't override the explicit use of total persons at a Federal level, would that not be inconsistent? And so potentially unequal?

I was hoping to see how Brad would respond to your questions.

I quit reading after the English form of voting rules was being discussed. I will read and answer.