Non-partisan Redistricting

[tinselwolverine]

Well, you might not like it or think it works, but you asked why we do it. This isn't some political opinion I'm arguing that I just made up. I'm pretty sure I got the explanation from grade school civics. The reason we do it this way is to protect the interests of smaller states.

Yes, that is what the founding fathers designed it to do...

Does it really do it?

I dunno; debatable, could be, but there is no doubt that's why it was established, and yes, the knowledge of that is grade school social studies (history/civics...)

 

[Michchamp]

Yeah, that was a pretty outdated thing to say. I went to Farm Aid recently. I'll blame that. It's actually a pretty great mix of rednecks and hippies.

Doesn't change the point of the EC biasing. The rural/urban split is a big political deal and it's cheaper per voter to cater to people that live in a small area than a big area.

it's not really a clear rural/urban split; some of the most liberal/progressive senators have come from rural western states: (granted this was back in the mid-late 1970's, but still...) Mike Gravel in AK, and Frank Church in ID. Look who those states elect today...

"Moral issues" like abortion, welfare, etc., cloud the fact that the rural poor need government services just as much as the urban poor do (look at how the votes for ballot initiatives for increases in minimum wage cut across party lines), but politicians (and I KNOW you love to adhere to some middle ground, but one side clearly uses this tactic more) use racism to divide and conquer... make it all about the inner city black welfare "takers" versus hard working "small farmers" athough few, if any, of either group really exist, and you get overwhelming numbers of rural poor whites voting GOP, and keeping themselves in a downward spiral.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's not really a clear rural/urban split

Looking at the NY Times numbers, rural/urban was a bigger swing than income.

For population groups of 500k+, 50k-500k, suburbs, 10k-50k, and rural, it went +40 Obama, +18 Obama, +2 Romeny, +14 Romeny, +24 Romney.

(not sure what the suburb classification includes/excludes or if there's overlap)

For family income groups of <$30k, $30k-$50k, $50k-$100k, $100k-$200k, and $200k+, it went +27 Obama, +14 Obama, +6 Romney, +10 Romney, +10 Romney.

Rural/Urban looks like the strongest correlation, which isn't an explanation of anything, but I think if you explain why the rural/urban split is the way it is, you've explained the weaker education and income correlations.

 

[Michchamp]

Looking at the NY Times numbers, rural/urban was a bigger swing than income.

For population groups of 500k+, 50k-500k, suburbs, 10k-50k, and rural, it went +40 Obama, +18 Obama, +2 Romeny, +14 Romeny, +24 Romney.

(not sure what the suburb classification includes/excludes or if there's overlap)

For family income groups of <$30k, $30k-$50k, $50k-$100k, $100k-$200k, and $200k+, it went +27 Obama, +14 Obama, +6 Romney, +10 Romney, +10 Romney.

Rural/Urban looks like the strongest correlation, which isn't an explanation of anything, but I think if you explain why the rural/urban split is the way it is, you've explained the weaker education and income correlations.

You're correct; I should have clarified I was referring to a more abstract idea that rural voters were always instinctively or permanently GOP voters.

These days, as you point out, the split is pretty clear.

 

[grandy]

If we keep the electoral college in place, I'd at least like to see split systems everywhere similar to Nebraska and Maine. Electoral votes will be handed based on district votes, with the winner of the popular vote taking the remaining 2 EVs.

This way, the EV system wouldn't need much changing number-wise and the value of EVs in smaller states wouldn't change. I feel like this would be a better way to reflect the popular vote without actually using the popular vote alone.

This is mainly because I dislike the winner-take-all approach, especially in battleground states. I hate the fact that one vote in Florida can determine who gets 29 EVs. In a split system, states like Florida and Ohio would basically be worth 2 EVs with the rest being split between the candidates. This might also give 3rd party candidates some publicity as it would be easier for them to take a few districts, netting them EVs. Of course the problem remains with how honest redistricting actually is.

I'll take a look tonight at the 2012 election and see what the results would've been had a system like this been in place.

 

[Thumb]

If we keep the electoral college in place, I'd at least like to see split systems everywhere similar to Nebraska and Maine. Electoral votes will be handed based on district votes, with the winner of the popular vote taking the remaining 2 EVs.

This way, the EV system wouldn't need much changing number-wise and the value of EVs in smaller states wouldn't change. I feel like this would be a better way to reflect the popular vote without actually using the popular vote alone.

This is mainly because I dislike the winner-take-all approach, especially in battleground states. I hate the fact that one vote in Florida can determine who gets 29 EVs. In a split system, states like Florida and Ohio would basically be worth 2 EVs with the rest being split between the candidates. This might also give 3rd party candidates some publicity as it would be easier for them to take a few districts, netting them EVs. Of course the problem remains with how honest redistricting actually is.

I'll take a look tonight at the 2012 election and see what the results would've been had a system like this been in place.

There also needs to be a system that makes sure Electors cast their votes for who the voters in that district voted for.

 

[grandy]

Actually, scratch my idea...it's an absolutely horrible, horrible idea and it probably gives small states too much influence on presidential elections.

Sources
2012 Election
District Results

Romney actually would've won the election 274-264
Highlighted in yellow are states that Obama won the popular vote, but Romney received more EVs

Before: Popular vote, Obama 51.1%; Romney 47.2%...EV, Obama 61.7% (+10.6%); Romney 38.3% (-8.9%)

After: EV, Obama 49.1% (-2.0%); Romney 50.9% (+3.7%)

It's closer to the popular vote, but the winner of the popular vote didn't actually win