Shutdown

[Fireball]

If you are facebook friends with Fireball you hear "gerrymandering" a lot, general in close proximity to unkind words.

We're FB friends? Cool. I honestly forgot I had folks on here in my friends list.

[Fireball]

What I would like to do, and I'm not yet sure if this is possible, would be to devise some kind of formula for drawing congressional districts. Start by figuring out how many seats you need and thereby the popluation per seat. Maybe pick a starting point and then starting adding counties (or maybe zip codes) in a spiral / circle direction until you hit the population / seat amount. At that point you start the next district, and keep adding in the same fashion until you hit the limit again, then start over again, until you wind up with the final map.

That would be a good starting point for draft maps, but then you'd need some sort of commission to review them and make sure you weren't dividing up communities of interest. To the best ability possible neighborhoods, towns and sparsely-populated counties be undivided. Similar populations tend to cluster in neighborhoods or towns, so it makes sense to group them into districts that would allow those populations to have a say in who their representative is. This is particularly important for minority candidates, who often cannot win election in districts that contain large numbers of white voters.

[LordMortis]

Seriously, WTF?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... id=rssfeed" target="_blank

I'll never make another Igloo or Penguin or Moose crack again.

It's God's Will as expressed by the people when he tries to fracture Government but when the will of the people tell him to sit down and shut the fuck up, he clings to the idea that he is the voice of the people.

Cruz left the reporters after a few minutes, but when he noticed the TV lights and microphones outside the Senate chamber, he stopped and reversed himself. After repeating his statement for the cameras, he took a question from CNN’s Bash, who pointed out that there has been “a lot of bruising political warfare internally, and you’ve got nothing for it.”

“I disagree with the premise,” Cruz informed her. He said the House vote to defund Obamacare, rejected by the Senate, was “a remarkable victory.”

It's like he's some sort of psychopath that read The Dead Zone and studied Jim Jones.

[geezer]

Seriously, WTF?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... id=rssfeed" target="_blank

I'll never make another Igloo or Penguin or Moose crack again.

It's God's Will as expressed by the people when he tries to fracture Government but when the will of the people tell him to sit down and shut the fuck up, he clings to the idea that he is the voice of the people.

Cruz left the reporters after a few minutes, but when he noticed the TV lights and microphones outside the Senate chamber, he stopped and reversed himself. After repeating his statement for the cameras, he took a question from CNN’s Bash, who pointed out that there has been “a lot of bruising political warfare internally, and you’ve got nothing for it.”

“I disagree with the premise,” Cruz informed her. He said the House vote to defund Obamacare, rejected by the Senate, was “a remarkable victory.”

It's like he's some sort of psychopath that read The Dead Zone and studied Jim Jones.

Did you read the article Exodor posted late on the last page? Cruz is seriously a world-class wanker.

[Fireball]

RE: Gerrymandering

Eliminate districts altogether. Hold a general state-wide election. X is the number of house of reps seats up for grabs. The top X candidates (in terms of number of votes) get the seats.

This also has the added benefit of diluting the two party system - if each party only puts up one guy and there are more than two seats up for grabs, then a third-party candidate has a pretty reasonable chance of slipping in.

As pointed out, the practical effect of this would be to render rural residents of states mostly mute. Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

[NickAragua]

RE: Rural residents not being represented

This whole discussion is predicated on two assumptions (which I personally don't see as accurate):
1) A "representative" actually represents the interest of the people who voted for him.
2) The people who vote have any clue what they are voting for (especially on a federal level).

Also, another assumption which I'll agree with, that rural and urban residents generally have different sets of priorities, and in a pure numbers game the rural guys lose every time.

But, let's say that the first two assumptions are correct. Then, in a winner-takes-all system, let's say somebody wins 60-40. Who represents the 40%? Not the winner, that's for sure.

Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

The proposed system scales super well to small states (unless they have only one rep, in which case it's exactly the same as the current system). In any event, you still have a limited number of candidates because each candidate has to meet some minimum signature criteria and cough up a proportionate amount of cash. Each person gets only one vote. I come from the kind of country where your average "Ivan" doesn't go to the government for help with problems unless they a) have a large wad of cash b) want to get mocked/beaten up/arrested/given a bullshit bureaucratic runaround or c) are extremely desperate and have absolutely no other option, so from my point of view, who "my" representative is doesn't really matter, and local support structure is really a non-issue for the same reason. In fact, the less of it the better.

But while I'm being cynical, why even bother with the facade of voting? Every time a seat goes up for grabs, a computer generates a random number (based on the exact number of photons coming from the sun or the methane content of a specific cow fart). Each person currently living in the state has a number. If your number came up, congratulations! You have just been drafted to the House of Representatives. It is now your job for the next four years. What's that? You're a convicted murderer / believe the moon landing didn't happen / don't want to do it? Even better! Good luck!

[LawBeefaroni]

Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

The proposed system scales super well to small states (unless they have only one rep, in which case it's exactly the same as the current system). In any event, you still have a limited number of candidates because each candidate has to meet some minimum signature criteria and cough up a proportionate amount of cash. Each person gets only one vote.

The problem is that a state like California has 53 representatives it must elect. So the minimum number of candidates it can have is 53. It's not at all outrageous to think that there would be over 100 names on the ballot for the 53 spots in such a system.

[NickAragua]

Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

The proposed system scales super well to small states (unless they have only one rep, in which case it's exactly the same as the current system). In any event, you still have a limited number of candidates because each candidate has to meet some minimum signature criteria and cough up a proportionate amount of cash. Each person gets only one vote.

The problem is that a state like California has 53 representatives it must elect. So the minimum number of candidates it can have is 53. It's not at all outrageous to think that there would be over 100 names on the ballot for the 53 spots in such a system.

I don't see it as an issue. The current election mechanism encourages uneducated party-line voting without any consideration - with a long list of names (no parties next to the candidate name!), it means that an individual would have to make up their mind ahead of time who they want to vote for (based perhaps on having to think a little bit and do some research, or listening to ranting on AM radio or whatever). Make a mistake where you vote for the wrong guy or get your ballot disqualified? Too bad, pay attention when you vote!

[Chaz]

So are you saying that I vote for 53 different people from the list of 100, or for one, and the top 53 vote getters wind up with seats?

[Scuzz]

So are you saying that I vote for 53 different people from the list of 100, or for one, and the top 53 vote getters wind up with seats?

I believe he wants the latter. In California you would probably have a couple hundred people on the ballot unless there was a primary to somehow reduce the number. California typically has as many as 4-5 candidates for each spot as there are that many parties that have qualified. Add the independents, and I would think that system would encourage independents, and you get a lot of candidates running.

[NickAragua]

So are you saying that I vote for 53 different people from the list of 100, or for one, and the top 53 vote getters wind up with seats?

The latter. You vote for one person out of the list of 100. At the end, the vote counting agency compiles the list of top 53 vote recipients. California is a fairly unusual case though.

[Defiant]

One idea I've thought about was having a (third?) house of congress where everyone can vote for whatever candidate they want (that runs), with the top X candidates winning - and receiving a vote in congress worth the amount of votes they received. So the candidate who won 50,000 votes would be twice as powerful as the one who received 25,000. It could even be run nationwide rather than statewide.

Of course, this risks the possibility that a few very popular representatives have a lot of power, and would also lead to an emphasis of "celebrity" politicians.

But the plus would be that you could vote for whatever candidate you believe the most in (eg, choose from a few hundred, rather than 2 or 3. It's harder to say you can't find someone you like when you have a lot more choices available) and could increase the viability of third parties that only receive a few percentage of votes at most currently if all those voters vote for one candidate by that third party.

[PLW]

There are a lot of really good political scientists who think that the whole gerrymandering things is overblown, both as an explanation for the Republican control of the House and as an explanation for the shutdown. The short reason:

The significance of gerrymandering is exaggerated. Republicans are in safe districts for an incredibly simple reason: Most of the country just isn’t competitive. If safe districts are the source of GOP extremism, then gerrymandering is not the cause.

Take Texas, a famously gerrymandered state. If you want to create competitive districts, you don’t have many great options. Of the state’s 254 counties, 244 were won by either Obama or Romney by at least 10 points. That's not how it used to be: Back in 1996, 92 counties were within 10 points. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these non-competitive counties tend to be extremely Republican. A whopping 176 of Texas’ 254 counties voted for Romney by more than a 40 point margin (at least 70-30). 81 of those counties voted for Romney by at least 60 points (ie 80-20). So, even a fair map would create plenty of incredibly red, safe, ultraconservative districts.

[pr0ner]

RE: Rural residents not being represented

This whole discussion is predicated on two assumptions (which I personally don't see as accurate):
1) A "representative" actually represents the interest of the people who voted for him.
2) The people who vote have any clue what they are voting for (especially on a federal level).

You realize 1) is a big reason why there was a shutdown, right?

[hepcat]

For a few days, maybe.

[Fireball]

RE: Rural residents not being represented

This whole discussion is predicated on two assumptions (which I personally don't see as accurate):
1) A "representative" actually represents the interest of the people who voted for him.
2) The people who vote have any clue what they are voting for (especially on a federal level).

This level of cynicism is toxic to democracy. I know a lot about how offices work in the United States Congress and in state legislatures. In those offices, the elected officials do work to represent the interests of their constituents. If you have a lot of veterans, you push hard on veterans issues. If the businesses in your district deal with, say, high tech, you care about the interests of the high tech industry. Because to a forward-looking politician, the population of the district isn't divided into "those who voted for me" and "those who voted against me," but "those who voted for me" and "those who I want to get to vote for me."

You're also engaging in the reductionism common amongst people who don't really understand what, say, a Congressional office does, or what a Congressman does. More than half the work done by Congressional staffers is constituent services -- connecting citizens to Federal agencies, providing them with information, helping cut through red tape. This is done for anyone who walks in the door -- in fact, it's illegal to give better service to people who voted for you than you do for those who you think voted against you.

Even a member of Congress himself or herself spends far more time meeting with constituents, returning calls from them, and visiting local businesses, etc, than they do voting on the floor of the House or Senate.

I come from the kind of country where your average "Ivan" doesn't go to the government for help with problems unless they a) have a large wad of cash b) want to get mocked/beaten up/arrested/given a bullshit bureaucratic runaround or c) are extremely desperate and have absolutely no other option, so from my point of view, who "my" representative is doesn't really matter, and local support structure is really a non-issue for the same reason. In fact, the less of it the better.

You're not in your old, anti-democratic home country anymore. This is the United States of America, we are a consolidated representative democracy and the greatest nation in the history of the world, and the system you're proposing is completely incompatible with how our government works. Our government isn't perfect, but if you have an issue with a federal agency, you can go to your member of Congress, and his or her staff will help you, not mock you, and you won't have to pay anything. It's why the offices exist. Millions of Americans turn to their member of Congress for help with any number of problems each month. It's why it's incredibly important that Americans have their own representatives.

[AWS260]

The significance of gerrymandering is exaggerated. Republicans are in safe districts for an incredibly simple reason: Most of the country just isn’t competitive. If safe districts are the source of GOP extremism, then gerrymandering is not the cause.

Take Texas, a famously gerrymandered state. If you want to create competitive districts, you don’t have many great options. Of the state’s 254 counties, 244 were won by either Obama or Romney by at least 10 points. That's not how it used to be: Back in 1996, 92 counties were within 10 points. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these non-competitive counties tend to be extremely Republican. A whopping 176 of Texas’ 254 counties voted for Romney by more than a 40 point margin (at least 70-30). 81 of those counties voted for Romney by at least 60 points (ie 80-20). So, even a fair map would create plenty of incredibly red, safe, ultraconservative districts.

There may be an argument to be made here, but Cohn's example isn't compelling. Texas counties vary wildly in population, from 3.7 million to --wait for it -- 67. It's not surprising that many low-population counties would lean extremely heavily in one direction, but that's just not relevant to the Congressional districts, which are required to be roughly equal in population.

[Fireball]

There are a lot of really good political scientists who think that the whole gerrymandering things is overblown, both as an explanation for the Republican control of the House and as an explanation for the shutdown. The short reason:

The significance of gerrymandering is exaggerated. Republicans are in safe districts for an incredibly simple reason: Most of the country just isn’t competitive. If safe districts are the source of GOP extremism, then gerrymandering is not the cause.

Take Texas, a famously gerrymandered state. If you want to create competitive districts, you don’t have many great options. Of the state’s 254 counties, 244 were won by either Obama or Romney by at least 10 points. That's not how it used to be: Back in 1996, 92 counties were within 10 points. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these non-competitive counties tend to be extremely Republican. A whopping 176 of Texas’ 254 counties voted for Romney by more than a 40 point margin (at least 70-30). 81 of those counties voted for Romney by at least 60 points (ie 80-20). So, even a fair map would create plenty of incredibly red, safe, ultraconservative districts.

Fixing gerrymandering is not a cure all. But we don't need to moderate every district in the country. We just need to moderate enough of them to make every cycle's Congressional election truly competitive. Most of the gerrymandering comes from cracking and packing votes of one party along the edges of urban/suburban areas (to screw Democrats) or suburban/rural areas (to screw Republicans). If you outlawed the practice, there'd be dozens more competitive districts across the nation, enough that the party in power would always be sufficiently endangered to be aware of their own political mortality.

That would make a great deal of difference.

It's not where I'd stop. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see if instant runoff voting would produce better results than the primary/general first-past-the-post system.

Alternatively, I'd be up for doubling the number of seats in the House, but keep electing them from the same number of districts. So we'd elect 435 members from single-member districts, and elect the other 435 through proportional distribution from a second ballot. Each ballot would have a question for representative from your district, and then a vote for which party you want to see control the House.

FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM YOUR DISTRICT, VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE:

Bob Smith - Democrat
John Jones - Republican
Jane Doe - Green
Brenda Wright - Libertarian

FOR CONTROL OF UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, VOTE FOR PARTY:

Democratic Party
Republican Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Reform Party

The seats from the second ballot would be allocated proportionally based on the national vote for this question to every party that gets more than 5% of the vote, and those seats would then be filled from predefined lists prepared by the various parties.

For those playing at home, yes, I've just described the German electoral system. They have a very good one.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas counties vary wildly in population, from 3.7 million to --wait for it -- 67.

That's 71, please. They grew from 67 in 2000 to 82 in 2010, and down to 71 as of last year.

[Rip]

Maybe the Tea Party Won

[gbasden]

It's wonderful how well that article highlights just how bugfuck nutty the Tea Party members are.

[NickAragua]

RE: Rural residents not being represented

This whole discussion is predicated on two assumptions (which I personally don't see as accurate):
1) A "representative" actually represents the interest of the people who voted for him.
2) The people who vote have any clue what they are voting for (especially on a federal level).

This level of cynicism is toxic to democracy. I know a lot about how offices work in the United States Congress and in state legislatures. In those offices, the elected officials do work to represent the interests of their constituents. If you have a lot of veterans, you push hard on veterans issues. If the businesses in your district deal with, say, high tech, you care about the interests of the high tech industry. Because to a forward-looking politician, the population of the district isn't divided into "those who voted for me" and "those who voted against me," but "those who voted for me" and "those who I want to get to vote for me."

You're also engaging in the reductionism common amongst people who don't really understand what, say, a Congressional office does, or what a Congressman does. More than half the work done by Congressional staffers is constituent services -- connecting citizens to Federal agencies, providing them with information, helping cut through red tape. This is done for anyone who walks in the door -- in fact, it's illegal to give better service to people who voted for you than you do for those who you think voted against you.

Even a member of Congress himself or herself spends far more time meeting with constituents, returning calls from them, and visiting local businesses, etc, than they do voting on the floor of the House or Senate.

In that case, once an individual wins a seat in the state-wide election, they get arbitrarily assigned to "represent" a district, said districts perhaps being redrawn along more reasonable lines now that district drawing is decoupled from the popularity contest. Sure, this may lead to somebody having to represent a district they don't quite like (I'd love to see a dyed-in-the-wool tea party guy have to represent a district of pot smoking liberal hippies or vice versa), but hey, it's public service not "serve who I want" service - suck it up and do your job!

[El Guapo]

There are a lot of really good political scientists who think that the whole gerrymandering things is overblown, both as an explanation for the Republican control of the House and as an explanation for the shutdown. The short reason:

The significance of gerrymandering is exaggerated. Republicans are in safe districts for an incredibly simple reason: Most of the country just isn’t competitive. If safe districts are the source of GOP extremism, then gerrymandering is not the cause.

Take Texas, a famously gerrymandered state. If you want to create competitive districts, you don’t have many great options. Of the state’s 254 counties, 244 were won by either Obama or Romney by at least 10 points. That's not how it used to be: Back in 1996, 92 counties were within 10 points. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these non-competitive counties tend to be extremely Republican. A whopping 176 of Texas’ 254 counties voted for Romney by more than a 40 point margin (at least 70-30). 81 of those counties voted for Romney by at least 60 points (ie 80-20). So, even a fair map would create plenty of incredibly red, safe, ultraconservative districts.

Fixing gerrymandering is not a cure all. But we don't need to moderate every district in the country. We just need to moderate enough of them to make every cycle's Congressional election truly competitive. Most of the gerrymandering comes from cracking and packing votes of one party along the edges of urban/suburban areas (to screw Democrats) or suburban/rural areas (to screw Republicans). If you outlawed the practice, there'd be dozens more competitive districts across the nation, enough that the party in power would always be sufficiently endangered to be aware of their own political mortality.

That would make a great deal of difference.

It's not where I'd stop. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see if instant runoff voting would produce better results than the primary/general first-past-the-post system.

Alternatively, I'd be up for doubling the number of seats in the House, but keep electing them from the same number of districts. So we'd elect 435 members from single-member districts, and elect the other 435 through proportional distribution from a second ballot. Each ballot would have a question for representative from your district, and then a vote for which party you want to see control the House.

FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM YOUR DISTRICT, VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE:

Bob Smith - Democrat
John Jones - Republican
Jane Doe - Green
Brenda Wright - Libertarian

FOR CONTROL OF UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, VOTE FOR PARTY:

Democratic Party
Republican Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Reform Party

The seats from the second ballot would be allocated proportionally based on the national vote for this question to every party that gets more than 5% of the vote, and those seats would then be filled from predefined lists prepared by the various parties.

For those playing at home, yes, I've just described the German electoral system. They have a very good one.

That seems like a fine system.

Also - I'm not only fine with but I am affirmatively for rural voters not being as well represented as they are now. I'm baffled why people seem to think that people who live in less densely populated areas somehow deserve proportionally higher representation. The Senate is WAY more over-representative of rural interests as it is. It's democratic madness that one senator in Wyoming represents ~ 280,000 people while one senator from California represents ~ 19 million people.

[Isgrimnur]

That goes back to the idea that we're a union of equal states, that there should be at least one place where the needs of Vermont and Wyoming have the same weight as those of New York and California.

If not, you'd end up with something akin to the college football problem where less populated states would want to band together or join larger ones in order to more effectively push their interests.

[El Guapo]

Oh, yeah I understand why, I just disagree the Vermont and California deserve equal representation. That's our history and our system, so I know it's not going anywhere, but that doesn't make it a great idea in modern times.

Having to accept the Senate's structure, however, means I would absolutely go no further in accommodating rural over-representation elsewhere.

[LawBeefaroni]

Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

The proposed system scales super well to small states (unless they have only one rep, in which case it's exactly the same as the current system). In any event, you still have a limited number of candidates because each candidate has to meet some minimum signature criteria and cough up a proportionate amount of cash. Each person gets only one vote.

The problem is that a state like California has 53 representatives it must elect. So the minimum number of candidates it can have is 53. It's not at all outrageous to think that there would be over 100 names on the ballot for the 53 spots in such a system.

I don't see it as an issue. The current election mechanism encourages uneducated party-line voting without any consideration - with a long list of names (no parties next to the candidate name!), it means that an individual would have to make up their mind ahead of time who they want to vote for (based perhaps on having to think a little bit and do some research, or listening to ranting on AM radio or whatever). Make a mistake where you vote for the wrong guy or get your ballot disqualified? Too bad, pay attention when you vote!

People don't work that way. If they're used to an easy system and you give them a more complicated one where they have to think more, they don't dive right in. But let's say the average voter does over the top 20 or so candidates and really digs in. You're still going to have people elected to the 53rd spot with a few thousand votes. The echo chamber will ensure a healthy victory for a handful, a substantial victory for a few more, and a bunch of statistically insignificant victories to round out the 53 spots. Remember, the largest voting demograpic in the country is the non-voter.


On the ballot here there are yes/no retention votes on 40 or so judges. I do my best to read State/Chicago Bar (that's the Bar Associaton with lawyers, not where I go to drink ) recommendations and local endorsements. but even when sticking to just the recommended "no" votes, I have to bring in a list to the ballot box. I would probably be considered an overachiever. It's a well known fact that most people just pick based on how the name sounds.

There is no way Californians (or any American voter) would pore over a list of 100 or 200 candidates to pick one. They would pick one from a list of 10 or 20 popular choices, or pick someone they knew personally. American voters are afraid of "throwing away" their vote when there are 3 candidates.

[El Guapo]

If not, you'd end up with something akin to the college football problem where less populated states would want to band together or join larger ones in order to more effectively push their interests.

God forbid you wind up with a system where representatives of populous states work together to push the interests of a majority of the population. You'd wind up with something like a representative democracy.

[Note that you also have constitutional rights to protect minorities from the majority].

[Zarathud]

IMO the issue is with the ability to combine census data with commercial data to create districts that vote reliably in a particular manner. No district should be absolutely "safe" for any party. My area of Chicago moves from district to district as a "safe" Latino Democrat district at the state and national level.

[Fireball]

In that case, once an individual wins a seat in the state-wide election, they get arbitrarily assigned to "represent" a district, said districts perhaps being redrawn along more reasonable lines now that district drawing is decoupled from the popularity contest.

Or how about we be a democratic republic, draw rational districts of equal populations, and have each district elect a candidate of their choice?

[Fireball]

No district should be absolutely "safe" for any party.

That's not possible without badly breaking up local communities and neighborhoods. You can't draw a rational, compact district including the southern half of Dallas, Texas, without it being safe for a Democrat. Nor can you draw a rational, compact district including Plano, Texas, without it being safe for a Republican. You can't draw any rational, compact districts in northern Virginia that would be competitive for a Republican at the Congressional scale.

That's okay. Some areas will be competitive. Other areas will not be competitive. What's important is determining a rational criteria that helps maximize the number of competitive districts without fracturing coherent communities of interest.

[NickAragua]

Also, it's not a system that scales well to small or big states. How many votes would someone get? Would a voter in California get 53 votes? Would they get one vote and have to pick through a list of two or three hundred candidates? Which of the 53 members is "my" representative who I go to for help with access to government services? How many offices around the state do each of the 53 members open? How big would their staffs be?

The problems with an all-statewide system are too numerous to count, and too overwhelming to correct for. It's not workable.

The proposed system scales super well to small states (unless they have only one rep, in which case it's exactly the same as the current system). In any event, you still have a limited number of candidates because each candidate has to meet some minimum signature criteria and cough up a proportionate amount of cash. Each person gets only one vote.

The problem is that a state like California has 53 representatives it must elect. So the minimum number of candidates it can have is 53. It's not at all outrageous to think that there would be over 100 names on the ballot for the 53 spots in such a system.

I don't see it as an issue. The current election mechanism encourages uneducated party-line voting without any consideration - with a long list of names (no parties next to the candidate name!), it means that an individual would have to make up their mind ahead of time who they want to vote for (based perhaps on having to think a little bit and do some research, or listening to ranting on AM radio or whatever). Make a mistake where you vote for the wrong guy or get your ballot disqualified? Too bad, pay attention when you vote!

People don't work that way. If they're used to an easy system and you give them a more complicated one where they have to think more, they don't dive right in. But let's say the average voter does over the top 20 or so candidates and really digs in. You're still going to have people elected to the 53rd spot with a few thousand votes. The echo chamber will ensure a healthy victory for a handful, a substantial victory for a few more, and a bunch of statistically insignificant victories to round out the 53 spots. Remember, the largest voting demograpic in the country is the non-voter.


On the ballot here there are yes/no retention votes on 40 or so judges. I do my best to read State/Chicago Bar (that's the Bar Associaton with lawyers, not where I go to drink ) recommendations and local endorsements. but even when sticking to just the recommended "no" votes, I have to bring in a list to the ballot box. I would probably be considered an overachiever. It's a well known fact that most people just pick based on how the name sounds.

There is no way Californians (or any American voter) would pore over a list of 100 or 200 candidates to pick one. They would pick one from a list of 10 or 20 popular choices, or pick someone they knew personally. American voters are afraid of "throwing away" their vote when there are 3 candidates.

If someone votes blindly along party lines, they are throwing their vote away as surely as if they feed the ballot to the shredder themselves. That being said, you're probably right about the practical outcome. I often can't bring myself to go vote precisely because I (quite often) have no idea who or what the hell I'm voting for, and (especially now, with a newborn in the house) don't really have the time to address my ignorance. That doesn't stop a lot of people, who just love feeling like they're "participating". Thus, I can easily picture a throng of morons (sorry, "average voters") filing into the polling place, seeing twenty names on the ballot and randomly picking one (or picking one based on the sound of the name, as you said). Of course, that's roughly what appears to happen now, so what I propose really won't improve the situation that much in terms of voter education, but it at least gives a chance to break up the two-party system, which, to a large degree, is responsible for the gerrymandering problem.

Of course, in order for that to happen, the two-party system would need to be willing to let go of the power which it has accumulated, which never, ever happens. So, we can consider my proposal a non-starter in practical terms.

In that case, once an individual wins a seat in the state-wide election, they get arbitrarily assigned to "represent" a district, said districts perhaps being redrawn along more reasonable lines now that district drawing is decoupled from the popularity contest.

Or how about we be a democratic republic, draw rational districts of equal populations, and have each district elect a candidate of their choice?

Sure, that would be super. However, see above.

[Fireball]

If someone votes blindly along party lines, they are throwing their vote away as surely as if they feed the ballot to the shredder themselves.

Nonsense. It's not as though political parties are random collections of disparate people. They are organized around policy positions and specific values. If I believe that taxes on the rich should be higher, that gays should be allowed to marry, and that the Affordable Care Act is a good thing, I'm going to vote for the Democrats on my ballot, even if I don't know much about them, because I know they are likely to be on my side on those issues, and the Republicans are likely to be opposed to my positions.

That's the point of political parties. They provide a baseline of information about a candidate, what they care about, and what values they hold. If I'm a Democrat because I agree with the Democratic Party on the bulk of issues, I am more likely to see progress on things I care about if I vote for Democrats, even if I don't know a great deal about some of the individual candidates.

Thus, I can easily picture a throng of morons (sorry, "average voters") filing into the polling place, seeing twenty names on the ballot and randomly picking one (or picking one based on the sound of the name, as you said). Of course, that's roughly what appears to happen now, so what I propose really won't improve the situation that much in terms of voter education, but it at least gives a chance to break up the two-party system, which, to a large degree, is responsible for the gerrymandering problem.

Again with the soul-crippling cynicism. If that's really how you feel, you'd be happier in your old country, politically speaking.

Also, gerrymandering has nothing to do with why we have a two-party system. We have a two-party system because we have a very strong executive branch, and because we have first-past-the-post elections. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. You couldn't draw a district in this country that was competitive for a Libertarian, even if you tried. If you gerrymandered very, very hard, you'd perhaps be able to create two or three seats that were competitive for Green Party candidates. Ungerrymandered districts will lower, not increase, the share of the vote nationwide that goes to one of the minor parties.

In that case, once an individual wins a seat in the state-wide election, they get arbitrarily assigned to "represent" a district, said districts perhaps being redrawn along more reasonable lines now that district drawing is decoupled from the popularity contest.

Or how about we be a democratic republic, draw rational districts of equal populations, and have each district elect a candidate of their choice?

Sure, that would be super. However, see above.

I've read everything you've written in this thread. None of it proffers any system better than what we have now, or offers any indication that you have much in the way of operation knowledge about our present electoral system.

[NickAragua]

If someone votes blindly along party lines, they are throwing their vote away as surely as if they feed the ballot to the shredder themselves.

Nonsense. It's not as though political parties are random collections of disparate people. They are organized around policy positions and specific values. If I believe that taxes on the rich should be higher, that gays should be allowed to marry, and that the Affordable Care Act is a good thing, I'm going to vote for the Democrats on my ballot, even if I don't know much about them, because I know they are likely to be on my side on those issues, and the Republicans are likely to be opposed to my positions.

That's the point of political parties. They provide a baseline of information about a candidate, what they care about, and what values they hold. If I'm a Democrat because I agree with the Democratic Party on the bulk of issues, I am more likely to see progress on things I care about if I vote for Democrats, even if I don't know a great deal about some of the individual candidates.

A very accurate summary, and describes my problem quite accurately as well. What good is a one-liner baseline when talking about federal level policies? How many people really, truly understand what "taxes on the rich should be higher" (for example) actually entails? The only ones that can make that claim probably have PhDs in economics, and dedicate their careers to studying said subjects. So, it's not even an insult to say that the average voter is too stupid to understand what they're voting for. The systems in place are so byzantine in their complexity, that not even Gordian himself would be able to untangle them. As you yourself said, people often need to visit a mini-bureaucracy (the local representative's office) to help them navigate the bureaucracy! We call that recursion in computer science. At that point you're left with voting for the individual you like better as they present themselves publicly, who throws out the best zingers in debates, etc., which basically boils down to a high school popularity contest.

Thus, I can easily picture a throng of morons (sorry, "average voters") filing into the polling place, seeing twenty names on the ballot and randomly picking one (or picking one based on the sound of the name, as you said). Of course, that's roughly what appears to happen now, so what I propose really won't improve the situation that much in terms of voter education, but it at least gives a chance to break up the two-party system, which, to a large degree, is responsible for the gerrymandering problem.

Again with the soul-crippling cynicism. If that's really how you feel, you'd be happier in your old country, politically speaking.

Only if I don't run afoul of the official organs. My family didn't come over to the US for the politics. Politicians are the same the world over - some just have more means of squashing the opposition than others.

Also, gerrymandering has nothing to do with why we have a two-party system. We have a two-party system because we have a very strong executive branch, and because we have first-past-the-post elections. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. You couldn't draw a district in this country that was competitive for a Libertarian, even if you tried. If you gerrymandered very, very hard, you'd perhaps be able to create two or three seats that were competitive for Green Party candidates. Ungerrymandered districts will lower, not increase, the share of the vote nationwide that goes to one of the minor parties.

I'm not sure I follow that last bit. If you have a winner-takes-all system, a "non mainstream" candidate/party would wind up getting 0% of the seats up for grabs. In a system like one I describe, a "non mainstream" candidate has a reasonable shot at getting one of the seats up for grabs, and most votes "count" (except for the ones for the guy who came in #54, 55, etc). You still have the same issues of the lazy, uneducated (which is not entirely through their own fault) electorate and corrupt politicians, but I've already withdrawn my proposal based on those exact grounds.

[Isgrimnur]

* Gordias, king of the Phyrgians. The city Gordium, named after him, is where the knot was located.

[Fireball]

If someone votes blindly along party lines, they are throwing their vote away as surely as if they feed the ballot to the shredder themselves.

Nonsense. It's not as though political parties are random collections of disparate people. They are organized around policy positions and specific values. If I believe that taxes on the rich should be higher, that gays should be allowed to marry, and that the Affordable Care Act is a good thing, I'm going to vote for the Democrats on my ballot, even if I don't know much about them, because I know they are likely to be on my side on those issues, and the Republicans are likely to be opposed to my positions.

That's the point of political parties. They provide a baseline of information about a candidate, what they care about, and what values they hold. If I'm a Democrat because I agree with the Democratic Party on the bulk of issues, I am more likely to see progress on things I care about if I vote for Democrats, even if I don't know a great deal about some of the individual candidates.

A very accurate summary, and describes my problem quite accurately as well. What good is a one-liner baseline when talking about federal level policies?

It's very good. We shouldn't expect voters to be public policy experts. If you know that you prefer more progressive taxes to less progressive taxes, or that your overwhelming concern is ending the War in Iraq (circa 2004), or that you think gay rights are going to destroy the nation, you know enough to prefer one party over the other, and thus the candidates of one party over those of the other, particularly for legislative offices wherein the "first vote" is really the only one that matters in most cases.

How many people really, truly understand what "taxes on the rich should be higher" (for example) actually entails? The only ones that can make that claim probably have PhDs in economics, and dedicate their careers to studying said subjects.

Nonsense.

As you yourself said, people often need to visit a mini-bureaucracy (the local representative's office) to help them navigate the bureaucracy! We call that recursion in computer science.

We call that good government in the United States.

At that point you're left with voting for the individual you like better as they present themselves publicly, who throws out the best zingers in debates, etc., which basically boils down to a high school popularity contest.

Not even remotely true. If voters were voting personality instead of policy, research would clearly show large numbers of people voting *for* candidates whose policy positions they *oppose*. In reality, research shows that while sometimes people vote for candidates whose overall philosophy differs from their own (conservatives voting for Obama, for instance), when it comes to the issues that matter most to voters there are clear preferences towards the candidate who shares their views on those issues (ie, a conservative in 2008 who was very opposed to the Iraq War voting for Obama).

Politicians are the same the world over - some just have more means of squashing the opposition than others.

Nonsense. I know hundreds of politicians, American or otherwise. While there are some tin pot dictator types, most are fairly regular folks who decided to get into politics because of something in their community that they wanted to "fix", regardless of whether I agree with what they wanted to do or not. Again, not all, but most.

Also, gerrymandering has nothing to do with why we have a two-party system. We have a two-party system because we have a very strong executive branch, and because we have first-past-the-post elections. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. You couldn't draw a district in this country that was competitive for a Libertarian, even if you tried. If you gerrymandered very, very hard, you'd perhaps be able to create two or three seats that were competitive for Green Party candidates. Ungerrymandered districts will lower, not increase, the share of the vote nationwide that goes to one of the minor parties.

I'm not sure I follow that last bit. If you have a winner-takes-all system, a "non mainstream" candidate/party would wind up getting 0% of the seats up for grabs. In a system like one I describe, a "non mainstream" candidate has a reasonable shot at getting one of the seats up for grabs, and most votes "count" (except for the ones for the guy who came in #54, 55, etc).

Your system is anti-democratic bullshit, and unworthy of consideration or discussion, so I've tossed it onto the scrapheap to discuss actual options for addressing the issues at hand.

[El Guapo]

Your system is anti-democratic bullshit, and unworthy of consideration or discussion, so I've tossed it onto the scrapheap to discuss actual options for addressing the issues at hand.

[Fireball]

Your system is anti-democratic bullshit, and unworthy of consideration or discussion, so I've tossed it onto the scrapheap to discuss actual options for addressing the issues at hand.

Everyone thinks they're an expert in the things that I do. It's... frustrating.

[LawBeefaroni]

Your system is anti-democratic bullshit, and unworthy of consideration or discussion, so I've tossed it onto the scrapheap to discuss actual options for addressing the issues at hand.

Everyone thinks they're an expert in the things that I do. It's... frustrating.

This is how I feel every time I see a politician talking about healthcare.

[El Guapo]

I get that. Sort of comes with the territory when one's field is public policy though. Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.

[Fireball]

Your system is anti-democratic bullshit, and unworthy of consideration or discussion, so I've tossed it onto the scrapheap to discuss actual options for addressing the issues at hand.

Everyone thinks they're an expert in the things that I do. It's... frustrating.

This is how I feel every time I see a politician talking about healthcare.

Touché.