Frank Schmidt wrote:
>> Even better!
>> A post I wrote last October:
>>
>> The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral
>> college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I
>> would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis
>> would be of much greater concern.
>>
>> Just to make sure my message is clear: *The Problem Is A Lack Of 
>> Fair
>> Representation*
>>
>> Using Wyoming as a benchmark, where you have 1 congressperson per
>> (roughly) 500,000 people, 2 Senators (as always) and 3 Electoral
>> votes.
>>
>> Compare to California where you have 1 Congressperson per 639,088
>> people, 2 Senators, and 55 Electoral votes.
>> That doesn't sound all that bad offhand, but if California had
>> representation equal to Wyomings you would get 67 Congresspersons 
>> and
>> 69 Electoral votes. That is a net gain of 12 Congresspersons and 14
>> Electoral votes.
>>
>> This lack of representation effects at least 48 states that I can
>> identify. Of those states, 25 are short one representative, and 10
>> are shorted by 2. Only Iowa and DC are represented in the same
>> proportion as Wyoming and the rest are shorted between 3 and 14
>> representatives.
>>
>> Law limits Congress to 435 Representatives, but if representation
>> were proportional there would be 549, an increase of 114
>> representatives. I do not see why this number should be unwieldy or
>> why it would cause difficulty.
>>
>> xponent
>> Census Data Maru
>> rob
>
> The difficulty is, when you have done the above and look at the new
> data, you'll find another state which is better represented than any
> other. I think the current system is so designed that it minimizes
> the difference between the actual number of Representatives (in
> Wyoming 1) and the deserved number (in Wyoming about 0.8), so your
> proposed change would probably make the situation much less
> desireable by your standards.
>
> I find the difference between the voters for district winners and 
> the
> voters for other candidates more of a problem. The first group has 
> 435
> Representatives, the other has none. The real problem is that the 
> most
> voters will either always be in the first group, or always be in the
> second group; relatively few change between the groups. Many in the
> losing group have already given up voting because of that.

I think you miss the point by some margin here. Regardless of what 
party a Representative belongs to, that Rep is still responsible to 
everyone in his district in the sense that the Rep is the person one 
goes to with a grievence or a plan. I would have no problem asking Tom 
Delay (Ugh.....my congressman....and one I would never under any 
circumstances vote for) for help with some matter, because that is 
part of his job. I don't have to like my Rep in order to apply for his 
services.

The other issue is representation. My state is unfairly represented 
when compared to Wyoming or Alaska. And that unfairness spreads even 
to representation by electors in presidential elections. Who is 
elected is irrelevent. What is relevent is that my vote is worth less 
in every way measurable than a voter in Wyoming. That is unfair and 
should be redressed.

Will it change things in a manner which I favor? Well.....Bush might 
still have been elected under my proposal, but that would be OK 
because it would have been a fairer election. There is no blaming or 
finger pointing involved here actually. It took many years before our 
system got so skewed and I don't think many people realize just how 
much it could effect "the wishes of the people as filtered through the 
college of electors". I have not tried to calculate (I realize this 
would be hard to make accurate in any case since I cannot predict 
electoral district boundries in states that have more electors) how 
this would have changed the most recent election. I don't think I 
would be happy (nor would the opposition) to find that a fair 
representation would have changed the results, so I have not even 
given it thought.

I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case.

xponent
No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru
rob 


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to