- Joined
- Sep 11, 2021
- Messages
- 18,838
- Reaction score
- 11,593
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
@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
Quite a well thought out presentation.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]
The commissions each work separately to:
|
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.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.
Just 6% of US House seats expected to be competitive thanks to rigged maps | NationofChange
www.nationofchange.org
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.
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 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.
"Counties are irrelevant."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.
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.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.
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.
In the last Canadian federal electionCanada 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.
Aside, of course, from the fact that that the total number of Senators is constitutionally fixed at 105.The Representation Formula
Information on the readjustment of electoral boundaries and representation in the House of Commons of Canada.www.elections.ca
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 spent.The grandfather clause is arbitrary.
Which, of course, is not the case.Congratulations to Canada for making the US Senate look good though. Canada has adopted the US system of equal representation by state
Possibly.(regardless of population, which is bad)
Well, the American system was designed to do the same thing - make sure that the rich and landed had control over the government.and combined it with the British system of Prime Ministerial appointment.
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.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.
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. |
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).
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.
That hardly looks like "each province has the same representation" does it?I'm talking about the Senate.
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.
True, just a shade over 150 years "new"That such a dreadful system hasn't gone badly wrong, can only be because it's relatively new.
Well, just because a system doesn't work in the United States of America that doesn't mean it doesn't work elsewhere.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!
And how many US Senators have resigned BEFORE they could get kicked out?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.
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".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,
See above concerning how elections are conducted in the US and Canada.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.
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.
See above concerning how elections are conducted in the US and Canada.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?