# The Anti-Gerrymander

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
My first priority is to increase the number of competitive seats in the US House. I will do that by drawing as many 50/50 districts as possible in each State, then “anti-gerrymandering” the remainder.

By the definition “over 5% margin is a safe seat” only 6% of House districts will be competitive in 2022. I can easily do better than that, using a redistricting algorithm to create an ANTI-GERRYMANDER.

My second priority is that each state contingent should match the 2-party vote in that state. This takes no account of turnout in each district. Nor does the current system of course. West Virginia with 38% Democratic vote, should send a Democrat most years (1 of 3).

I made as many competitive districts as possible for the remaining districts to be no more than 90% towards the majority party in that state. If the algorithm can’t turn out such heavily gerrymandered districts, then we work backwards eliminating one competitive district at a time until "anti-gerrymandered" districts are possible for the remainder. It may be 80% or even 70%, in either case it’s unwinnable for the minority party.

Consider the example of Hawaii. House results averaged over 5 elections (first and second tables, 2012 to 2020) and then adjusted to add to 100%. Republican candidates got only 28% of the vote, so NO DISTRICTS AT ALL can be made tossups. To make one tossup district would use up 25% of the R vote, and therefore I’m assuming no other district could be drawn (competitive OR anti-gerrymandered, since it’s a 2 district State). The system does work for 2 district states, but not if they're extremely partisan.

Another tricky example is California. With a perfect gerrymander it would be possible to have 38 tossup districts, however this would require 18 districts all with 2% R’s in them. The column “Adjusted Tossup (AT)” in the third table, shows 35 tossup districts instead, because this makes the Anti-Gerrymandered districts each 10% Republican, or greater. In this run-through, there are 15 anti-gerrymandered districts in California.

Note that 90% is an estimate of the maximum of majority voters who can be packed into one district. It will depend on the districting algorithm but the number will be higher in the deep red or deep blue States. It’s easier to gerrymander against the majority, than against the minority.

It’s planned that tossup states will come in a range within 5% of each other. Where there’s an even number of planned tossups, they would lean equal numbers and amounts each way, and where there’s an odd number of planned tossups, one district would be exactly 50/50.

My system produces 314 tossup districts beginning two years after the Census year. Not counting single-district states (because I skipped them) nor Wisconsin nor Virginia (who had their Anti-Gerrymandered districts within 5% by chance), this is 72.2% of districts, being tossups. Objective 1 is attained!

It’s worth noting that demographics of each district change over one decade, and I’m not able to do anything about incumbency advantage during that time either. It’s still a lot better than what State districting has done for voters now.

The second objective is state delegations looking like the statewide vote. This is given in Tables 4 and 5. Single district States appear as 100% with no further calculations. The second and third columns show actual representation in 2020. Columns 4 and 5 are the 2012-2020 votes per election and state (ie, using 2020 as a "random" example of future elections.) Seventh and eighth columns are the expected result if both parties ran “to form” for the last decade (ie prediction of my system).

You can see that almost every state elects more proportionately (green) using my system. Some are the same (yellow.) Michigan and Minnesota are worse, but not far off my prediction, and indicate a swing to Republicans in 2020 continuing to 2022. Both are within the 5% winnable margin (for the 7th or 4th district respectively).

I was actually surprised this turned out so well. With states representing the vote so well, it follows naturally that the US House as a whole will be more representational too: Republicans 215, Democrats 220. That’s not biased: Republicans only need a national swing of less than 1% to take the House. It's how it should be.

It is possible to make winnable districts for third parties. However, it’s also necessary for those third parties to contest more than one election in a decade. Until they do that, it is not justified to make a three-way winnable district for their benefit. A third party with 3% of the vote, don't get their 3% of representation without a full overhaul of the House with a national list of candidates. My system is not that radical: the only change is to how districts are drawn.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Tables 1 and 2. Calibration of state partisan lean from the preceding 5 elections.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Tables 3 and 4. Assignment of tossup and anti-gerrymandered districts.

"Ideal RAG" means the number of tossup seats we could make, if there was no limit on how gerrymandered the remaining districts could be. There is however a limit, a least so far as each district must have only one continuous boundary. A practical limit of 90/10 is assumed: this is more than most conventionally gerrymandered districts, however we're gerrymandering against the majority here. It's easier, without making "octopus" districts.

"Recommended RAG" is however much slack has to be cut for the districting algorith. I repeat, I'm assuming no less than 10% of the minority voters, but if this proves impossible then more "recommended RAGs" would be added until it works.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Finally, we compare the expected outcome for one election. I'm using 2020. With the new districting method hot from the forge, it can be expected to produce results very close to the popular vote in each state.

Green is where my system is closer (in representatives per state) to the popular vote in each state. Compared to what actually happened. Yellow is where my system produced the same result. Pus pink is where the actual result was closer to the vote than my system. I'm pretty happy with that, though demographic change throughout the following decade would throw it off a bit.

I should have mentioned, this redistricting method would be used in the 1.5 years between the Census and the next House election. That the redistricting algorithm (not supplied) might move boundaries a lot, doesn't really bother me. Incumbent advantage could use a bit of kicking.

Last edited:

#### WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
@Spirit of The Millennium

Thank you for the heads up on the thread and I will ponder your presentation in full more later.

The problem is that in most states defining districts is done by the state legislature and THEY DON'T WANT "competitive" districts. They want "safe" districts for their tribe (and both DEM and GOP legislatures do this). And I'm not sure gerrymandering to ensure "competitive" districts is any more desirable then gerrymandering to protect a tribes power.

I'm in the camp that gerrymandering attempting to receive a desired outcome of votes is fundamentally the wrong approach. Congressional districts, should be drawn based on population distribution with logically derive boundaries and let the chips fall where they may.

Time for me to get to chores, be back later.

WW

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
@Spirit of The Millennium

Thank you for the heads up on the thread and I will ponder your presentation in full more later.

The problem is that in most states defining districts is done by the state legislature and THEY DON'T WANT "competitive" districts. They want "safe" districts for their tribe (and both DEM and GOP legislatures do this). And I'm not sure gerrymandering to ensure "competitive" districts is any more desirable then gerrymandering to protect a tribes power.

I'm in the camp that gerrymandering attempting to receive a desired outcome of votes is fundamentally the wrong approach. Congressional districts, should be drawn based on population distribution with logically derive boundaries and let the chips fall where they may.

Time for me to get to chores, be back later.

WW

"Let the chips fall where they may" means two things: minorities being disenfranchised, and majorities wasting their votes. Any district which is unwinnable wastes the vote of half the people: those who cannot hope to win, plus the remainder (to make up half) who didn't need to vote, in order to get the candidate they wanted.

A national system would reduce these two kinds of wasted vote, to nearly half. But we can't have that, it would require a big fat amendment. My system corrals the extremes of the deep-colored states to a minority of their districts, delivering (a) many more winnable seats, (b) more accurate representation within each state, and (c) more accurate representation nationally. And it might not even require an amendment.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
I'd like to do this with US House seats, however separating turnout for those from turnout for Senate, President, state legislature, Governor and local offices is a bit "big data" for me. Instead I've graphed state turnout in 2020 against Cook Partisan Index (states). To express partisanship regardless of party, Dem and Rep leaning states are on the same scale.

I'll do 2018 when I get around to it. That will still show turnout for Senate more than turnout for House (since there are winnable districts in practically all states) but perhaps I'll separate the ones with a Senate seat contested from those without. I'm quite sure the regression line will be steeper.

#### TU Curmudgeon

##### B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
My first priority is to increase the number of competitive seats in the US House. I will do that by drawing as many 50/50 districts as possible in each State, then “anti-gerrymandering” the remainder.

[REDACTED DUE TO FORUM CHARACTER LIMITS]
Quite a well thought out presentation.

You might consider using a metric that is slightly more sensitive to "voter inclination" than the one that you used the "Variance numbers":

As an example of how those "variance" numbers are derived, here is the sub-table for Florida

HOWEVER, what you are doing is STILL "manipulating the vote to achieve a political result".

What you might want to consider is
Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts;
The representation formula; and
The role of the electoral boundaries commissions;
Electoral Boundaries Commission Act;
Election Act
(especially

#### Impartiality​

5 (1) Before beginning to perform the duties of office, the chief electoral officer must make a solemn declaration before the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to faithfully and impartially exercise the powers and perform the duties of office.

(2) The chief electoral officer is not entitled to vote in an election.

(3) The chief electoral officer must not

(a) hold another office or engage in other employment,

(b) be a member of, hold a position with or make a contribution to a registered political party, a registered constituency association or a political party or constituency association seeking registration, or

(c) in relation to the individual's candidacy, hold a position with or make a contribution to an individual who is, intends to be or was a candidate in an election.​
; and
How are federal electoral boundaries decided

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Canada is the perfect illustration how single-member constituencies can go terribly wrong, whether or not the ridings/districts are drawn fairly or not. I will read all the links, but what happened in the latest election is frankly horrifying. If Canadians are willing to vote for more than 2 parties, they are in urgent need of a system which does not punish them by vote-splitting.

But now let's look at 2018 mid-terms, firstly with Senate seats in the running, then the states with no Senate seats up. Rather than giving equations of the regression line, I've just tried for a visual effect by using the same scales. DC is omitted.

Top left red box is Minnesota which had a special election (2 Senate seats). Bottom right is Mississippi, likewise with a regular and special election.

When there is no Federal office besides the House, State partisanship clearly discourages voters. A district-by-district analysis would very likely show this even more starkly: the very lowest turnout would be in strongly partisan districts, in strongly partisan states (for or against the district) with the state effect strongly dominating in Presidential years.

Imagine if we could make the House overall encouraging of turnout! We could get 75% or more, even in mid-term years.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran

This is bad in various ways. The number of House members varies over time. The Senatorial clause can be gamed by simply appointing more Senators. The grandfather clause is arbitrary.

Congratulations to Canada for making the US Senate look good though. Canada has adopted the US system of equal representation by state (regardless of population, which is bad) and combined it with the British system of Prime Ministerial appointment. There does not appear to be even a mechanism to remove blatantly corrupt or criminal "Lords". You just have to wait until they turn 75.

No argument with the British Monarch though. I'm suspicious of the Monarch having a role in the UK itself, but in the Commonwealth Realm outside that, the Monarch is above national politics and essentially incorruptible. Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, and Sweden are also examples of workable monarchies.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran

 The commissions each work separately to: Propose a new electoral map for their province by considering such criteria as average population numbers, communities of identity and interest, historical patterns of an electoral district, and geographic size of electoral districts Consult with Canadians through public hearings Submit a report on their considerations and propose electoral map to the House of Commons Consider objections from members of the House of Commons Prepare a final report outlining the electoral boundaries for their province.

"Communities of identity and interest" could be good or bad. It's good if it allows a minority to win One riding, when an impartial boundary would allow them to win None. But it's bad if it allows a minority to have One riding with an overwhelming majority, instead of winnable pluralities in Two ridings.

Not part of my plan, but I've often wondered if we could allow voters to vote for candidates in directly neighbouring districts (possibly as well as candidates in their own) and then use that expression of preference to redraw the district at decade's end. The advantage of being allowed to split their vote is that no "union of voters" would be required to beat gerrymanders: if polling says they will win their district by 90/10, they can cast 60% of their one vote for the local representative of their choice, and 40% for the candidate in a neighbouring district. Nobody has to worry about how other candidates are actually voting, only their voting intentions as measured by polls.

#### AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
My first priority is to increase the number of competitive seats in the US House. I will do that by drawing as many 50/50 districts as possible in each State, then “anti-gerrymandering” the remainder.

By the definition “over 5% margin is a safe seat” only 6% of House districts will be competitive in 2022. I can easily do better than that, using a redistricting algorithm to create an ANTI-GERRYMANDER.

[snip]
It seems like you want to use political parties to determine your preferred outcome, that seems no different to me than what exists today. Both are bad.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
It seems like you want to use political parties to determine your preferred outcome, that seems no different to me than what exists today. Both are bad.

I want to use the vote county by county (and indeed, polling place by polling place) to draw district lines. As it says in the title, I want to anti-gerrymander.

But the purpose is quite different. And the outcome is quite different.

I am sceptical myself of how well it seems to work. More districts are competitive, well that was by design. But the representation state-by-state and nationally is also much better.

Who is disenfranchised? Those who end up in overly partisan districts? Yes, their votes are partially wasted. But you show me some way of districting (still within States, as required by the Constitution) which does not disenfranchise anyone. Consider Iowa in 2020, with 62.5% Republican vote. Republican won 4 of 5, and without making any accusations of gerrymandering that is worse than my system which says they should win 3. "Winner takes all" exaggerates the winnings of a majority, and to counter that it is necessary to cancel out some of their power.

The majority still get a majority of representatives. What they don't get is a bonus just for being the majority.

#### AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
I want to use the vote county by county (and indeed, polling place by polling place) to draw district lines. As it says in the title, I want to anti-gerrymander.

But the purpose is quite different. And the outcome is quite different.

I am sceptical myself of how well it seems to work. More districts are competitive, well that was by design. But the representation state-by-state and nationally is also much better.

Who is disenfranchised? Those who end up in overly partisan districts? Yes, their votes are partially wasted. But you show me some way of districting (still within States, as required by the Constitution) which does not disenfranchise anyone. Consider Iowa in 2020, with 62.5% Republican vote. Republican won 4 of 5, and without making any accusations of gerrymandering that is worse than my system which says they should win 3. "Winner takes all" exaggerates the winnings of a majority, and to counter that it is necessary to cancel out some of their power.

The majority still get a majority of representatives. What they don't get is a bonus just for being the majority.
This is no disenfranchisement unless someone is prevented from voting. Basing districts on past voting for your preferred outcome is still gerrymandering. You just want to perpetuate the political party system for your definition of fair. No thank you.

I prefer the keep cities and counties whole as much as possible method for districts. I don't care about current party registration breakdowns or the shape of districts, those are artificial.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
This is no disenfranchisement unless someone is prevented from voting. Basing districts on past voting for your preferred outcome is still gerrymandering. You just want to perpetuate the political party system for your definition of fair. No thank you.

I have some ideas which would favor third parties more than the current system. Basically they'd be given a "three way winnable" district if they could demonstrate votes over one decade, within that state.

It's obviously more complicated, however it would be a better chance than any third party currently has of winning a House seat.

I prefer the keep cities and counties whole as much as possible method for districts. I don't care about current party registration breakdowns or the shape of districts, those are artificial.

Counties are irrelevant. The division of cities and their outlying suburbs and road-populations is where all the serious gerrymandering gets done.

So what's the alternative to gerrymandering? Some lines on the map, representing where people used to live (counties)? Or some algorithm which splits cities into pie charts?

You need something better than "natural". There is no natural. Districts are created by humans, or by an algorithm created by humans.

#### AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
I have some ideas which would favor third parties more than the current system. Basically they'd be given a "three way winnable" district if they could demonstrate votes over one decade, within that state.

It's obviously more complicated, however it would be a better chance than any third party currently has of winning a House seat.

Counties are irrelevant. The division of cities and their outlying suburbs and road-populations is where all the serious gerrymandering gets done.

So what's the alternative to gerrymandering? Some lines on the map, representing where people used to live (counties)? Or some algorithm which splits cities into pie charts?

You need something better than "natural". There is no natural. Districts are created by humans, or by an algorithm created by humans.
"Counties are irrelevant."

No, they aren't. The rest is just your version of gerrymandering for your desired outcome.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
"Counties are irrelevant."

No, they aren't. The rest is just your version of gerrymandering for your desired outcome.

My desired outcome is not partisan. It is:

1. Maximum number of districts could be won by either party, depending only on the quality of candidate they run.
2. Each state contingent should mirror the popular vote in that State
3. The US House should mirror the votes of each State.

Yes, gerrymandering is the method. But the outcome is quite the opposite of conventional gerrymandering (which exaggerates the majority in each state)

And counties are irrelevant. People vote, not cattle or corn.

#### AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
My desired outcome is not partisan. It is:

1. Maximum number of districts could be won by either party, depending only on the quality of candidate they run.
2. Each state contingent should mirror the popular vote in that State
3. The US House should mirror the votes of each State.

Yes, gerrymandering is the method. But the outcome is quite the opposite of conventional gerrymandering (which exaggerates the majority in each state)

And counties are irrelevant. People vote, not cattle or corn.
I didn't say you were partisan, just you want your own version of gerrymandering. State contigents are irrelevant except for a tie in the House of Representatives in the Electoral College.

I don't know where you live, but my county has a significant impact on the lives of my county. They aren't cattle or corn.

#### WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
My desired outcome is not partisan. It is:

1. Maximum number of districts could be won by either party, depending only on the quality of candidate they run.
2. Each state contingent should mirror the popular vote in that State
3. The US House should mirror the votes of each State.

Yes, gerrymandering is the method. But the outcome is quite the opposite of conventional gerrymandering (which exaggerates the majority in each state)

And counties are irrelevant. People vote, not cattle or corn.

I think what @AliHajiSheik is similar to what I said earlier.

Gerrymandering to achieve "competitive" outcomes, is still gerrymandering for political purposes. The goals might be slightly different (a) a hypothetical "fair" voter distribution v. (b) a distribution intended to consolidate opposition votes into as few districts as possible, but it is still drawing lines based on desired political outcomes.

Speaking for myself, I prefer taking the politics out of the equation and districts be drawn by non-partisan professionals based on population density, geographic boundaries, urban/suburban/rural planning, and government entity (city, county) lines so that districts make sense. I for one am willing to then let the vote fall were they may.

I work for a school system and we have a software vendor that plots school zones and bus transportation routes based on just those factors which provides for maximum efficiency of bus routes based on time, location, and schools to be serviced. This would simply be an adaptation to that same type software - which in reality probably already exists.

WW

#### TU Curmudgeon

##### B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Canada is the perfect illustration how single-member constituencies can go terribly wrong, whether or not the ridings/districts are drawn fairly or not. I will read all the links, but what happened in the latest election is frankly horrifying. If Canadians are willing to vote for more than 2 parties, they are in urgent need of a system which does not punish them by vote-splitting.

But now let's look at 2018 mid-terms, firstly with Senate seats in the running, then the states with no Senate seats up. Rather than giving equations of the regression line, I've just tried for a visual effect by using the same scales. DC is omitted.

View attachment 67378991

Top left red box is Minnesota which had a special election (2 Senate seats). Bottom right is Mississippi, likewise with a regular and special election.

View attachment 67378992

When there is no Federal office besides the House, State partisanship clearly discourages voters. A district-by-district analysis would very likely show this even more starkly: the very lowest turnout would be in strongly partisan districts, in strongly partisan states (for or against the district) with the state effect strongly dominating in Presidential years.

Imagine if we could make the House overall encouraging of turnout! We could get 75% or more, even in mid-term years.
In the last Canadian federal election
1. the Liberal Party received 32.62% of the popular vote and 47.32% of the seats
2. the Conservative Party received 33.74% of the popular vote and 35.21% of the seats
3. the NDP received 17.82% of the popular vote and 7.40% of the seats
4. the BQ received 7.64% of the popular vote and 9.47% of the seats
however if you add the Liberal and NDP votes and seats together, what you get is 50.44% of the popular vote and 54.72 of the seats. AND the result of that is that the Liberals "form the government" PROVIDED that the NDP feels like letting them do so (and that means that the Liberals HAVE TO modify their position to accommodate a different ideological viewpoint).

Had the same thing happened in the US (where the "Two Party System" provides absolutely no incentive for compromise), the US would have been stuck with an impotent and do nothing government for a minimum of two, and more likely four, years.That is NOT a "horrendous" discrepancy and NONE of the discrepancies were due to "gerrymandering" or "voter inconveniencing legislation".

You may think that the concept "We like the government to have power - but not TOO MUCH power, and we like the idea that we can toss the rascals out if we feel like it." is anathema to (what Americans think of as) democracy but it really isn't.

#### TU Curmudgeon

##### B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran

This is bad in various ways. The number of House members varies over time. The Senatorial clause can be gamed by simply appointing more Senators.
Aside, of course, from the fact that that the total number of Senators is constitutionally fixed at 105.
The grandfather clause is arbitrary.
The grandfather clause is spent.
Congratulations to Canada for making the US Senate look good though. Canada has adopted the US system of equal representation by state
Which, of course, is not the case.
(regardless of population, which is bad)
Possibly.
and combined it with the British system of Prime Ministerial appointment.
Well, the American system was designed to do the same thing - make sure that the rich and landed had control over the government.

The Canadian government has reversed decades of practice where the only people "eligible" for Senate seats were lapdogs of the then current party in power and returned to the practice of having an independent body make several recommendations for vacant senate seats and then allowing "the Governor in Council" to make the final selection from amongst a group where ALL of the members were considered both suitable and qualified (rather than simply "looks good on TV and has piles of cash to donate to the party" as in the US).
There does not appear to be even a mechanism to remove blatantly corrupt or criminal "Lords". You just have to wait until they turn 75.
Senators can’t be fired by the PM, but the Senate can vote to remove members from office if they are found guilty of committing what the Constitution describes as an “infamous crime” (this has never been done to date). The US Senate has the same power over its members. It would be nice to be able to say that "this has never been done to date" about the US Senate, but then I wouldn't be telling the truth.
No argument with the British Monarch though. I'm suspicious of the Monarch having a role in the UK itself, but in the Commonwealth Realm outside that, the Monarch is above national politics and essentially incorruptible. Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, and Sweden are also examples of workable monarchies.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Aside, of course, from the fact that that the total number of Senators is constitutionally fixed at 105.

The grandfather clause is spent.

Which, of course, is not the case.

 Seats are assigned on a regional basis: four regions—defined as Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces—each receive 24 seats, with the remaining nine seats allocated to the remaining portions of the country: six to Newfoundland and Labrador and one to each of the three northern territories.

Perhaps you mean they don't represent the provinces (merely come from there) but that hardly makes it better.

Possibly.

Well, the American system was designed to do the same thing - make sure that the rich and landed had control over the government.

The Canadian government has reversed decades of practice where the only people "eligible" for Senate seats were lapdogs of the then current party in power and returned to the practice of having an independent body make several recommendations for vacant senate seats and then allowing "the Governor in Council" to make the final selection from amongst a group where ALL of the members were considered both suitable and qualified (rather than simply "looks good on TV and has piles of cash to donate to the party" as in the US).

That such a dreadful system hasn't gone badly wrong, can only be because it's relatively new. US Senators are elected, Canadian Senators are appointed. Remember what a panacea against corruption the appointment of Senators was in the US? They liked is so much that 3/4 of States (the governments DOING THE APPOINTING) voted to get rid of it!

Senators can’t be fired by the PM, but the Senate can vote to remove members from office if they are found guilty of committing what the Constitution describes as an “infamous crime” (this has never been done to date). The US Senate has the same power over its members. It would be nice to be able to say that "this has never been done to date" about the US Senate, but then I wouldn't be telling the truth.

Shameless apples to oranges. The US Senate removed William Blount for treason (1797) and a bunch of Democrat Senators for no less than supporting the Confederacy (1861). It was richly deserved in both cases and before Canada even had a Parliament. Since then two Canadian Senators have resigned to avoid expulsion (Lavigne 2011, Thompson 1998) because the system in its wisdom allows them to keep their pension if they only resign.

Anyway, I hope we're not contemplating anything as stupid as Presidential appointment OR Governor General's appointment, to the US House. This line of discussion only began because I said there was a better case for CANADA reforming their House. In the last election, the party with the plurality of the vote came second in seats, to the Liberal party with a near-majority (47%) from just 32.6% of the vote. That's some mean vote splitting you have going on.

#### TU Curmudgeon

##### B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran

 Seats are assigned on a regional basis: four regions—defined as Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces—each receive 24 seats, with the remaining nine seats allocated to the remaining portions of the country: six to Newfoundland and Labrador and one to each of the three northern territories.

Perhaps you mean they don't represent the provinces (merely come from there) but that hardly makes it better.
That hardly looks like "each province has the same representation" does it?
That such a dreadful system hasn't gone badly wrong, can only be because it's relatively new.
True, just a shade over 150 years "new"
US Senators are elected, Canadian Senators are appointed. Remember what a panacea against corruption the appointment of Senators was in the US? They liked is so much that 3/4 of States (the governments DOING THE APPOINTING) voted to get rid of it!
Well, just because a system doesn't work in the United States of America that doesn't mean it doesn't work elsewhere.

The idea that the Senators would be composed of "the best people" fell apart a lot faster in the US than it did in Canada, and the Canadian government has taken steps to reverse the trend while the US government is quite happy with a system where only "party hacks who are guaranteed to vote the party line" get into the US Senate.
Shameless apples to oranges. The US Senate removed William Blount for treason (1797) and a bunch of Democrat Senators for no less than supporting the Confederacy (1861). It was richly deserved in both cases and before Canada even had a Parliament. Since then two Canadian Senators have resigned to avoid expulsion (Lavigne 2011, Thompson 1998) because the system in its wisdom allows them to keep their pension if they only resign.
And how many US Senators have resigned BEFORE they could get kicked out?
Anyway, I hope we're not contemplating anything as stupid as Presidential appointment OR Governor General's appointment, to the US House. This line of discussion only began because I said there was a better case for CANADA reforming their House. In the last election, the party with the plurality of the vote came second in seats,
The elections in Canada (like those in the United States of America) are NOT decided by totaling up the national vote, it is decided by totaling up the votes in each of the ridings. How that works is that (as an example, you have 5 ridings of equal size and one party gets 100% of the vote in two of them and 49% of the vote in the remaining three, that party ends up with 69.4o% of the total popular vote but with only 40% of the seats. Strangely enough, in the US, if one Presidential candidate gets 50%+1 of the votes in 13 (specific) states and 0.00% of the votes in the remaining 38, they would be elected to the office of president with (roughly) 25% of the popular vote while the other party's candidate ended up with roughly 75% of the popular vote. That wouldn't make the candidate who got 75% of the popular vote the "Vice-President".

If one were to accept your "theory" then there should be 52 Democrat Senators and 47 Republican Senators with one Libertarian Senator sitting in the US Senate right now.
to the Liberal party with a near-majority (47%) from just 32.6% of the vote. That's some mean vote splitting you have going on.
See above concerning how elections are conducted in the US and Canada.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
The elections in Canada (like those in the United States of America) are NOT decided by totaling up the national vote, it is decided by totaling up the votes in each of the ridings. How that works is that (as an example, you have 5 ridings of equal size and one party gets 100% of the vote in two of them and 49% of the vote in the remaining three, that party ends up with 69.4o% of the total popular vote but with only 40% of the seats. Strangely enough, in the US, if one Presidential candidate

Uh-uh. Don't start talking about the Presidency.

gets 50%+1 of the votes in 13 (specific) states and 0.00% of the votes in the remaining 38, they would be elected to the office of president with (roughly) 25% of the popular vote while the other party's candidate ended up with roughly 75% of the popular vote. That wouldn't make the candidate who got 75% of the popular vote the "Vice-President".

Irrelevant.

If one were to accept your "theory" then there should be 52 Democrat Senators and 47 Republican Senators with one Libertarian Senator sitting in the US Senate right now.

Because it's the thread subject, we're talking about the US House, if you don't mind. Because the US is not even attempting more than two parties, their House is more proportionate to the vote than the Canadian Parliament is.

See above concerning how elections are conducted in the US and Canada.

Except that above, you seem to be talking about ANYTHING BUT the US House.

#### Ug make hammer

##### Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran

Maybe I don't need to do anything. Republicans are gerrymandering themselves!