Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 9:08 am

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

My response came before that diversion.

Not that it was not at heart a discussion about the fairness of "people" v "registered voters" v "actual voters" for determining districts / reps. The UK is not using that different a system.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 11:09 am

If you'd bothered to read it Brad you'd see that we're just at a more advanced stage of comprehension on this issue because it's been an issue here for a while (admittedly one that only interests politics nerds like Dan and me). You should leave the reservation from time to time, there's a big world out there... :wink:
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Dec 2015, 11:18 am

I absolutely agree that you know more about British politics than I do. When you both started talking about that, I just let you go on.

As for my opinion, I will say that the Constitution says people. I do agree with that. However, I think it should be based upon actual people who are legally able to vote, and I would be glad to vote for an amendment to change the verbage therein.

Much more above board than just choosing to not do what the Constitution says.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 12:40 pm

bbauska wrote:I absolutely agree that you know more about British politics than I do. When you both started talking about that, I just let you go on.
The point we are trying to make is that sometimes things that happen outside the USA can have commonality or relevance to US discussions.

As for my opinion, I will say that the Constitution says people. I do agree with that. However, I think it should be based upon actual people who are legally able to vote, and I would be glad to vote for an amendment to change the verbage therein.
It clearly would have to be an Amendment.

Much more above board than just choosing to not do what the Constitution says.
well, yes. I guess that's why the Texas situation is going to the USSC, to see what the application is for States - should they be consistent with the US constitution, or can they veer off?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 1:38 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:As for my opinion, I will say that the Constitution says people. I do agree with that. However, I think it should be based upon actual people who are legally able to vote, and I would be glad to vote for an amendment to change the verbage therein.
It clearly would have to be an Amendment.


For States, I don't know that this is true, and I think that's the crux of the case. Do States need to define "the people" in the same way as the Federal gov't for their own State Legislature? States are normally given pretty broad latitude to govern their affairs (each has their own constitution, for instance.) Can they define "the people" differently than the Feds when it comes to governing their own affairs? It's an interesting legal question, at minimum.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 3:42 pm

geojanes wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:As for my opinion, I will say that the Constitution says people. I do agree with that. However, I think it should be based upon actual people who are legally able to vote, and I would be glad to vote for an amendment to change the verbage therein.
It clearly would have to be an Amendment.


For States, I don't know that this is true, and I think that's the crux of the case. Do States need to define "the people" in the same way as the Federal gov't for their own State Legislature? States are normally given pretty broad latitude to govern their affairs (each has their own constitution, for instance.) Can they define "the people" differently than the Feds when it comes to governing their own affairs? It's an interesting legal question, at minimum.
well, I meant if it were to apply to Federal districts. Of course, federal districts are already quite uneven. It is supposed to be about 700,000 people per House Representative. But they vary from about 525,000 to 994,000 because the populations of small states don't easily divide into whole numbers of 700,000.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Dec 2015, 5:10 pm

By the way, I tried to see what the variation was in terms of registered voters by district, but it's not easy. By state I could get the number of registered voters as of 2014, and compare that with the 2010 census numbers.

It would make a bit of a difference if we used the 2014 Registrations to apportion districts per state:

California would lose 7 seats, Texas 4 and Georgia and NY 1 each.

Washington, Montana, Oregon, North Carolina, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Louisiana would gain 1 each.

Rhode Island would still be massively over-represented. And Delaware would still be massively under-represented. Montana would switch from being the most under-represented state to the second-most over-represented state.

Other than that it would make no difference to the State delegations. Obviously within states it might alter the districts more.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 19 Dec 2015, 10:07 pm

Not to quibble, but the present electoral quotient is something on the order of 725,000. I see what you're saying about variations in the size of congressional districts but I don't see any way of altering that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 2:30 am

JimHackerMP wrote:Not to quibble, but the present electoral quotient is something on the order of 725,000. I see what you're saying about variations in the size of congressional districts but I don't see any way of altering that.

If, as bbauska wants, the Constitution were amended to Base apportionment on registered voters, it would have a some effect.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Dec 2015, 8:28 am

danivon wrote:
JimHackerMP wrote:Not to quibble, but the present electoral quotient is something on the order of 725,000. I see what you're saying about variations in the size of congressional districts but I don't see any way of altering that.

If, as bbauska wants, the Constitution were amended to Base apportionment on registered voters, it would have a some effect.


Just to be clear, I do give all states 2 votes based upon Senate representation, and the rest of representation based upon an equal (or as close as convenient as possible) amount of legal voting age citizens in a district.

Sidebar: Can we get rid of the "amazing art project designs" that have become the shapes of district these days?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 9:00 am

The way to do the latter is to create independent boundary commissions with clear mandates to draw up boundaries which make sense and which are not in any way, shape or form influenced by the governing party in whichever state they happen to be based in. It's not hard. The problem you have in the States is that the process is in the hands of the politicians, who have a vested interest in gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves. I believe California recently passed a proposition which changed their system to one similar to what I just described, it'll be interesting to see how things work out there over the next few electoral cycles.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 10:09 am

sass
I believe California recently passed a proposition which changed their system to one similar to what I just described, it'll be interesting to see how things work out there over the next few electoral cycles.

One step forward, another back.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed two pieces of legislation Wednesday that dramatically alter the election and campaign finance landscape in the state.
The first new law dismantles the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board -- an independent elections and ethics panel -- which has been held up as a national model because it's run by six former judges rather than partisan political appointees.
In its place will be two different commissions overseeing ethics and elections, ran mostly by partisan appointees put in place by the governor and legislative leaders.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 10:56 am

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:
JimHackerMP wrote:Not to quibble, but the present electoral quotient is something on the order of 725,000. I see what you're saying about variations in the size of congressional districts but I don't see any way of altering that.

If, as bbauska wants, the Constitution were amended to Base apportionment on registered voters, it would have a some effect.


Just to be clear, I do give all states 2 votes based upon Senate representation, and the rest of representation based upon an equal (or as close as convenient as possible) amount of legal voting age citizens in a district.
That was my assumption in my workings.

My point was that while it would mean some states having fewer House seats and others an extra one, the differences between most and least voters / citizens per seat would still be about the same as now.

Sidebar: Can we get rid of the "amazing art project designs" that have become the shapes of district these days?
Sass is right - get politicians out of the decision and hand it to independent bodies. Of course in the US that seems problematic.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 21 Dec 2015, 7:58 pm

We've discussed this for a while and I totally agree.

But how? California it was easier to get it done because the people can more or less bypass the constitutional structure of law-making and make it themselves via plebiscite. In most states you can't do that. So how are we going to convince politicians to do something they don't want to, that isn't in the interests of doing so, should they wish to perpetuate their (or their party's) power?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 22 Dec 2015, 5:14 am

JimHackerMP wrote:We've discussed this for a while and I totally agree.

But how? California it was easier to get it done because the people can more or less bypass the constitutional structure of law-making and make it themselves via plebiscite. In most states you can't do that. So how are we going to convince politicians to do something they don't want to, that isn't in the interests of doing so, should they wish to perpetuate their (or their party's) power?
Well, one way is to point out that the same thing may work against them and entrench the other party in power later on. But that may just lead to bipartisanship, and a cartel.

The other means is to argue that they would lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public if they continue to gerrymander, and then you get anti-politics movements making headway. Show them a picture of Trump as an example...