Non-partisan Redistricting

[Sbee]

Cheating wins I guess... Republicans are just really good at it...

Off to see Interstellar..

They are better. I'd love to see some kind of large scale redistricting for representation. The problem is that all the lawmakers live those non competitive districts.

 

[tsmith7559]

They are better. I'd love to see some kind of large scale redistricting for representation. The problem is that all the lawmakers live those


There just isn't a perfect solution to creating a district

 

[tsmith7559]

Done spreadsheeting...here are the results

I went back 50 years (25 elections) (This does not include the 2014 election as full results aren't in yet)

- A positive percentage means the house percentage was higher than the popular vote percentage
- A negative percentage means the house percentage was lower than the popular vote percentage
- Note: Some years included both positive, this is due to the popular percentage of both parties adding up to less than 100%

- From 1964 to 1992, districting favored Democrats (greatly so in some cases)
- From 1996 to present, with the exception of 2006 and 2008, districting slightly favored Republicans (greater in recent years)
- The 1994 and 2006 Houses were the best representation compared to popular vote

Data for reference

Raw numbers are from Wikipedia

I did not account for independents, I do not think this will alter the data too much, here are the 3rd party counts by year
2004 = 1
2002 = 1
2000 = 2
1998 = 1
1996 = 1
1994 = 1
1992 = 1
1990 = 1
1972 = 1

Not sure the popular vote is the best way of analyzing this for the same reason why the electoral college was created over the popular vote.

 

[Sbee]

They are better. I'd love to see some kind of large scale redistricting for representation. The problem is that all the lawmakers live those


There just isn't a perfect solution to creating a district

Continually redrawing them with elections in mind is not the way to go.

 

[Sbee]

Not sure the popular vote is the best way of analyzing this for the same reason why the electoral college was created over the popular vote.

Still waiting for a good reason why the electoral college exists. I guess it's there to make Mississippi democrats and new York republicans not want to vote.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Still waiting for a good reason why the electoral college exists. I guess it's there to make Mississippi democrats and new York republicans not want to vote.

It exists because it can't be terminated via statute because it's constitutional, and no amendment to terminate it would ever possibly be ratified by the states, as proscribed in the constitutional amendment process.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Still waiting for a good reason why the electoral college exists. I guess it's there to make Mississippi democrats and new York republicans not want to vote.

There's a couple reasons. States don't have to do it the way they do, they can split up their votes if they want. But by lumping a group of people together and going with a winner-take-all approach, you force candidates to pay more attention to the needs of your group.

As to why small states get more voting power per person, it's so big states can't run over little states. Otherwise the politicians from the biggest 8 or 9 states could all collaborate and push policy that benefits them by taking advantage of the other 41 states.

 

[tinselwolverine]

There's a couple reasons. States don't have to do it the way they do, they can split up their votes if they want. But by lumping a group of people together and going with a winner-take-all approach, you force candidates to pay more attention to the needs of your group.

As to why small states get more voting power per person, it's so big states can't run over little states. Otherwise the politicians from the biggest 8 or 9 states could all collaborate and push policy that benefits them by taking advantage of the other 41 states.

They already do, but they would do it a lot more.

Small states also view it as forcing the actual candidates to pay attention to them.

 

[Sbee]

There's a couple reasons. States don't have to do it the way they do, they can split up their votes if they want. But by lumping a group of people together and going with a winner-take-all approach, you force candidates to pay more attention to the needs of your group.

As to why small states get more voting power per person, it's so big states can't run over little states. Otherwise the politicians from the biggest 8 or 9 states could all collaborate and push policy that benefits them by taking advantage of the other 41 states.

I'm thinking more from a presidential election standpoint, I don't see a problem with one person one vote.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm thinking more from a presidential election standpoint, I don't see a problem with one person one vote.

A lot of people don't. For the reasons I stated and Gulo explained, there are way too many people whose opinion matters in the decision to change things who do.

It ain't ever going to happen.

 

[TheVictors]

Not sure how that's relevant.

I'm talking about taking a mathematical approach based on census data in order to draw up new districts. I don't agree that the current party in power should be able to draw up these districts. Some states have a non-partisan or bipartisan commission that does this, but it has yet to catch on everywhere.

It makes sense to me as we don't have to deal with gerrymandering accusations and lawsuits that arise every election.

What's this? tstupid is a RACIST?! No fucking way

 

[Sbee]

A lot of people don't. For the reasons I stated and Gulo explained, there are way too many people whose opinion matters in the decision to change things who do.

It ain't ever going to happen.

isis wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the electoral college.

 

[Mitchrapp]

If it's one person one vote, why would small states vote at all? It won't change an outcome. Why would states like Vermont or Wyoming ever vote..they become even more irrelevant.

 

[Sbee]

If it's one person one vote, why would small states vote at all? It won't change an outcome. Why would states like Vermont or Wyoming ever vote..they become even more irrelevant.

???

One vote for president in Vermont counts as much as one in Texas.

 

[Thumb]

???

One vote for president in Vermont counts as much as one in Texas.

Not really.

1 vote in Texas is either towards 38 electoral votes, or 0. Vermont is either 3 electoral votes, or 0.

In a popular election 1 vote would count as much, but not even close in an electoral one.

I'm sure Republicans in Vermont feel just as useless as Democrats in Texas during a presidential election, because of the electoral college.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Didn't Kennedy take Texas in 1960?

Took Illinois, too...

 

[Thumb]

Didn't Kennedy take Texas in 1960?

Took Illinois, too...

And if it was still 1960 that might be a good point.

Of course you would have learned the results after watching one of the 3 total networks on the 11" screen of your black and white television set.

 

[Sbee]

Not really.

1 vote in Texas is either towards 38 electoral votes, or 0. Vermont is either 3 electoral votes, or 0.

In a popular election 1 vote would count as much, but not even close in an electoral one.

I'm sure Republicans in Vermont feel just as useless as Democrats in Texas during a presidential election, because of the electoral college.

Right but if a big state is won by a small margin it's not indicative of the electorate.

There is no reason for a president to get the most votes nationally and lose

 

[tinselwolverine]

Right but if a big state is won by a small margin it's not indicative of the electorate.

There is no reason for a president to get the most votes nationally and lose

What president ever got the most votes nationally and lost the election?

 

[tinselwolverine]

What president ever got the most votes nationally and lost the election?

EDIT: Actually...Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828 and 1832...he had had the most of the popular vote in 1824, but lost to John Quincy Adams in the electoral vote...so there is one...