Three Californias?

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Vin said:

You're using extremes as the measure . 

There's never been an EC victory that wasn't also relatively close in the popular vote . This idea that the presidency is stolen by the system is exaggerated I think .

Alternately, the US is one of only a handful of countries where the person who got the most votes did not actually end up being the head of the government - and the US has done this twice in the last 16 years.

[lokisnow]

15 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

@lokisnow

Sigh…If you only rely on the popular vote, rural voters, and therefore the issues that are near and dear to them, will get completely ignored. What you are arguing for will not make everyone’s vote equal, it will just shift the balance of power from rural to urban voters, and in turn depress rural turnout. That’s why my solution is better. It maximizes the value of everyone’s vote, because it requires candidates to appeal to everyone, and will do the most to increase turnout, which should be the ultimate goal.

Also, you’re wrong about the Senate. The Seventeenth Amendment altered Clause One of Section Three of Article One, thus making senate appointments subject to a popular vote. That’s the same part of the Constitution that address the number of senators each state gets. Another Constitutional Amendment could do the same regarding the allocation of senators among states, though obviously that will never happen since small states won’t shoot themselves in the foot for the greater good of the country.

Ah but rural Concerns are best addressed by election of senators and state legislatures, it is not something that should be involved in the national election of an executive.

and rural concerns have never been ignored in the history of this country, and that status is not dependent on the national election of the executive, there are far more extensive and  robust reasons rural areas have and always will be extremely privileged in this country.

Changing the national election of the executive isn’t going to even minorly affect the rural populations highly privileged position in this country.

 

[Kalbear]

What's more amusing is that the states which ultimately decide the election are not particularly urban or rural right now. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan all have some of the biggest urban centers in the nation; Nebraska and Kansas are the most rural, but have almost zero effect on the outcome of an election. 

[Vin]

 

7 minutes ago, كالدب said:

Alternately, the US is one of only a handful of countries where the person who got the most votes did not actually end up being the head of the government - and the US has done this twice in the last 16 years.

Yeah, it's not ideal and it frustrates the hell out of people but it's the best compromise we have . A couple of interesting suggestions to improve it here are plausible but simply abolishing it is impossible imo .

[Kalbear]

Just now, Vin said:

 

Yeah, it's not ideal and it frustrates the hell out of people but it's the best compromise we have . A couple of interesting suggestions to improve it here are plausible but simply abolishing it is impossible imo .

Why is it the best compromise we have?

That's what I don't get about your argument. You haven't stated what you are going for, and you've not stated how this is a good solution towards your goal. We currently have a system where:

• more populous states get less representation per capita than less populous states at the House level
• more populous states get less representation per capita at the senate level
• more populous states get less representation per capita voting at the executive level

By any measure - state power, popular power, representative power - our system is regressive and undemocratic. Furthermore, as states get bigger, more of their population tends to be completely ignored and useless as far as voting nationally due to winner-take-all rules.

And the stated reason in the establishment of the EC for using the electoral college - to allow for EC delegates to potentially override the popular decision if a candidate is not a good one - has been ignored. 

Why is this the best compromise, again?

[DMC]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Ive brought this up before and I believe dmc or fez protested that we utterly must live for all time with 438 representatives because that is how many desks fit in the chamber for the House of Representatives.

no matter how egregious the inequality and misrepresentation becomes we have to live with it forever.

because antique desks are more important than people.

especially more important than people of color, who are disproportionately hurt by the DC desk fetishizers.

thats DC for ya, got their priorities straight, desk fetishes are the new dog whistle.

 

(they belong in a museum!)

Ah, I can always rely on you to either misattribute or misrepresent what I've said in the past.  First, let's get one thing straight - there are 435 voting members of the House.  There are also six non-voting members, but the 438 number seems to be derived from the fact there are 538 EC votes when that extra 3 come from DC (which has one of those non-voting members, and that's it).

Second, while I recall arguing with Scot about this in the past, my objections have nothing to do with the current set number but rather the ridiculous size the House would have to be to have any type of effect.  To get to the type of proportionality Madison discussed in the Federalist Papers, we'd have over 10,000 members.  One may complain the set number and the Hill are relics, but the only legislature in the world that has over a thousand members is China's, which...is not something I think we should be striving for.  This concern is derived from the potential (and I'd say likelihood given the current level of polarization) for intractability in the lower chamber - and spare me the logical fallacy of "it can't get any worse than this."  Yes, it can.  Another objection was raised by Madison himself in Federalist 55:

Quote

The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.

Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

Third, I have frequently cited and endorsed the National Popular Vote plan as a plausible way to circumvent the EC, as have I frequently pointed out there is no legitimate argument for keeping the EC.  The claim it saps the influence of rural areas - as well as this new preposterous farce that it would somehow foment secession - is complete bollocks.  As has been mentioned, rural areas still would have the unwarranted and disproportionate influence in the Senate.

[Seli]

57 minutes ago, Vin said:

You're using extremes as the measure .

Yes? It seemed to only sensible approach to posts that use even more extreme measurements (eg not even theoretically viable) in shooting down a popular vote mechanism.

ie

5 hours ago, Vin said:

Because it threatens the union . We know that a popular vote would mean domination by New York, California and Texas and fuck all for the other smaller states . I know that the threat of civil war and secession is considered an improbability now but I think it's a very dangerous concept to toy with for the US . It can probably work in other countries that don't have a history of potent statehood rule.

 

[Vin]

14 minutes ago, كالدب said:

Why is it the best compromise we have?

That's what I don't get about your argument. You haven't stated what you are going for, and you've not stated how this is a good solution towards your goal. We currently have a system where:

• more populous states get less representation per capita than less populous states at the House level
• more populous states get less representation per capita at the senate level
• more populous states get less representation per capita voting at the executive level

By any measure - state power, popular power, representative power - our system is regressive and undemocratic. Furthermore, as states get bigger, more of their population tends to be completely ignored and useless as far as voting nationally due to winner-take-all rules.

And the stated reason in the establishment of the EC for using the electoral college - to allow for EC delegates to potentially override the popular decision if a candidate is not a good one - has been ignored. 

Why is this the best compromise, again?

Preserves the union and protects smaller states from the tyranny of larger ones .

Removing the cap is something I can see helping fix these issues but establishing popular vote isn't . Just saying that the system is flawed without putting forth solutions to fix or replace it isn't really helpful . Now if you believe the popular vote is the ultimate answer then that's fine , I simply disagree.

That's never happened .

[Vin]

8 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

Yes? It seemed to only sensible approach to posts that use even more extreme measurements (eg not even theoretically viable) in shooting down a popular vote mechanism.

ie

 

I don't think that the threat of violence in today's charged and polarized America is a far away extreme . I think it just needs enough pressure and the right spark . I don't think this is outrageous.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

Preserves the union

Sorry; what evidence do you have that without this, the union would be dissolved?

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

and protects smaller states from the tyranny of larger ones .

Sorry; what evidence do you have that without this, the smaller states would be affected by the tyranny of the larger? 

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

Removing the cap is something I can see helping fix these issues but establishing popular vote isn't . Just saying that the system is flawed without putting forth solutions to fix or replace it isn't really helpful . Now if you believe the popular vote is the ultimate answer then that's fine , I simply disagree.

Similarly, if you're going to say that this is the best compromise, you must be comparing to something else. What are you comparing to? 

As to a better solution, I think the best solution is to give the executive branch less power, give congress more power, and focus heavily on representational government as the way to ensure small states have a voice. POTUS is a poor place to have any kind of weird shenanigans, since it is by its own nature winner-take-all and you can't have a POTUS be, say, 40% Democrat. The best place to have more representational government is in places where you can break it out by fraction in a natural way. 

I think the best answer is a parliamentary, multiparty system, but that's really never going to happen. 

[DanteGabriel]

9 minutes ago, Vin said:

Preserves the union and protects smaller states from the tyranny of larger ones .

Oh great, now we just need someone to protect us from the tyranny of scizophrenic midsize states like Florida and Ohio.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

31 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Ah, I can always rely on you to either misattribute or misrepresent what I've said in the past.  First, let's get one thing straight - there are 435 voting members of the House.  There are also six non-voting members, but the 438 number seems to be derived from the fact there are 538 EC votes when that extra 3 come from DC (which has one of those non-voting members, and that's it).

Second, while I recall arguing with Scot about this in the past, my objections have nothing to do with the current set number but rather the ridiculous size the House would have to be to have any type of effect.  To get to the type of proportionality Madison discussed in the Federalist Papers, we'd have over 10,000 members.  One may complain the set number and the Hill are relics, but the only legislature in the world that has over a thousand members is China's, which...is not something I think we should be striving for.  This concern is derived from the potential (and I'd say likelihood given the current level of polarization) for intractability in the lower chamber - and spare me the logical fallacy of "it can't get any worse than this."  Yes, it can.  Another objection was raised by Madison himself in Federalist 55:

Neither Hamilton nor Madison anticipated the power the Federal Government currently holds (Hell, the Anti-federalists in arguing against ratification of the Constitution did a better job in anticipating the power the Feds would have eventually).  That being the case if we want to claim to be a representative democracy why shouldn’t we increase the size of the HOR to better represent the 350 million people living in the United States?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

That being the case if we want to claim to be a representative democracy why shouldn’t we increase the size of the HOR to better represent the 350 million people living in the United States?

 

39 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

This concern is derived from the potential (and I'd say likelihood given the current level of polarization) for intractability in the lower chamber - and spare me the logical fallacy of "it can't get any worse than this."  Yes, it can.  Another objection was raised by Madison himself in Federalist 55:

Quote

The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.

Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

If you want to, say, double the size, I'm fine with that.  But, it wouldn't really affect the problem you're attempting to rectify (the disproportionate influence of rural areas).  To do so would require upping the number of voting members well into the thousands, which, see above.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

 

If you want to, say, double the size, I'm fine with that.  But, it wouldn't really affect the problem you're attempting to rectify (the disproportionate influence of rural areas).  To do so would require upping the number of voting members well into the thousands, which, see above.

870 is enough to spred more electors to urban areas an dilute the power of rural electors.  It’s never going to be perfect and there will always be trade offs.

I will say that the original objection to a popular vote for the Presidency that it would allow the mob to set up an emperors type figure is pointless as we track the popular vote anyway.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

870 is enough to spred more electors to urban areas an dilute the power of rural electors.  It’s never going to be perfect and there will always be trade offs.

If you're fine with 870, then it appears we have an accord.

[Vin]

Geez I'm done , I'm done . This is not worth it . I concede.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMBouazizi said:

If you're fine with 870, then it appears we have an accord.

Please see my edit

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

I will say that the original objection to a popular vote for the Presidency that it would allow the mob to set up an emperors type figure is pointless as we track the popular vote anyway.

Sure is!

[Starkess]

The congressperson with the smallest constituency is (I believe) the Wyoming rep. WY population is ~600,000. The US population is ~330 million. Even if you just gave enough representatives so that every ~600,000 people were represented by 1 representative, that's only 550 reps. Obviously that number isn't exact because you'd have to look at how close you can get to 600k in each state, but you could make a substantive improvement over 435 without having to get to 10k reps or anything.

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, DMBouazizi said:

Ah, I can always rely on you to either misattribute or misrepresent what I've said in the past.  First, let's get one thing straight - there are 435 voting members of the House.  There are also six non-voting members, but the 438 number seems to be derived from the fact there are 538 EC votes when that extra 3 come from DC (which has one of those non-voting members, and that's it).

Second, while I recall arguing with Scot about this in the past, my objections have nothing to do with the current set number but rather the ridiculous size the House would have to be to have any type of effect.  To get to the type of proportionality Madison discussed in the Federalist Papers, we'd have over 10,000 members.  One may complain the set number and the Hill are relics, but the only legislature in the world that has over a thousand members is China's, which...is not something I think we should be striving for.  This concern is derived from the potential (and I'd say likelihood given the current level of polarization) for intractability in the lower chamber - and spare me the logical fallacy of "it can't get any worse than this."  Yes, it can.  Another objection was raised by Madison himself in Federalist 55:

Third, I have frequently cited and endorsed the National Popular Vote plan as a plausible way to circumvent the EC, as have I frequently pointed out there is no legitimate argument for keeping the EC.  The claim it saps the influence of rural areas - as well as this new preposterous farce that it would somehow foment secession - is complete bollocks.  As has been mentioned, rural areas still would have the unwarranted and disproportionate influence in the Senate.

No offense meant, my tongue was firmly in cheek.

 

i did the math of this back when, representation steadily decreased but the house size also increased until just before the Wilson administration. If we draw a trend line of how many more people were represented by each reapportionment from 1788 to 1912 and extend that line to today we would have about 422,000 per district which only increases the house to about 731 members.  

731 members of the house is hardly the horrifying apocalypse of representation you’re afraid of.

But 731 is not terribly worthwhile as a reform because what Scot is talking about is a lot more representation so that the HOR achieves its purpose, making gerrymandering more impossible, 731 districts probably just makes gerrymandering easier and more effective. 

 while on the other hand there’s an inflection point in representation where gerrymandering becomes much more difficult to harvest anti urban benefits from, probably in the 100,000 ppl per district range (or less) which would be a HOR of about 3087 Representatives. (Which sounds outrageous, but would be about equal to the ratio of representatives to population we had in 1852 and it wasn’t an apocalypse to have that level of representation)

you could certainly still gerrymander Ohio if Ohio had 115 Representatives, but it would be much less effective, and the reward you earn per seat in successsfully disenfranchising the victims of gerrymandering becomes proportionally less as the districts become smaller in population.  

Right now it is great for republicans that they can disenfranchise 700,000 residents with a packed district or can disenfranchise 300,000 residents with a cracked district.

Right now the reward for gerrymandering per district has a great return on the investment of gerrymandering. And reward per district increases every census so long as population increases and representation is static! WINWIN! 

But if you can only disenfranchise 90,000 residents in every packed district and 40,000 residents in every cracked district? Your ROI per district in gerrymandering has been seriously impacted.

but is that 3087 members really the worst thing in the world? more representation, more equality, more women, more people of color, easier access for representatives to earn seats.

Not sure why any of these are bad things other than creating some headaches for the punditocracy.  

I’ll take more equality and more representation every time if the primary objection is braid tugging and hand wringing by political addicts.