Re: US voting reform idea
Frank Schmidt wrote: *attempting to process* I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for his district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the voters might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his solid majority. Is that what you mean? I think it is more along the lines of ..regardless of what party an elected official belongs to, I benefit by having that officials representation. Representation by an opposition party is on the whole going to be better than no representation at all. Frex: I know of people who have had problems with the VA, talked to their Rep and was able to get some resolution. Reps do not ask who you voted for by and large, just if you are in their district. This is the kind of thing almost any Rep would do for a constituent. Are you happy with the current system of single-member districts? Do you think multi-member districts would be worse, although you would probably get a Representative you actually voted for? 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. To that sentence I cannot subscribe. 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. OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 Representatives, and equal or better representation than Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation than Texas. I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case. xponent No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru rob So what do you think now? Well California is being shorted 12 Representatives. You think they are going to throw a fit if some other states get only a little bit better represented? Right now they are shorted a lot. xponent Status Quotient Maru rob I looked at apportionment data again. California deserves 435*(CA population)/(USA population) = 52.44 seats. California gets 53. I don't see where they are shorted. Now if the states would be proportionally represented in the electoral college, California would get 65. But since every state gets its number of Representatives plus number of Senators, they only get 55. So you might say they are ten seats short there, but not 12. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
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 congressmanand 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. *attempting to process* I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for his district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the voters might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his solid majority. Is that what you mean? 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. OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 Representatives, and equal or better representation than Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation than Texas. I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case. xponent No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru rob So what do you think now? -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Frank Schmidt wrote: *attempting to process* I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for his district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the voters might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his solid majority. Is that what you mean? I think it is more along the lines of ..regardless of what party an elected official belongs to, I benefit by having that officials representation. Representation by an opposition party is on the whole going to be better than no representation at all. Frex: I know of people who have had problems with the VA, talked to their Rep and was able to get some resolution. Reps do not ask who you voted for by and large, just if you are in their district. This is the kind of thing almost any Rep would do for a constituent. 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. OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 Representatives, and equal or better representation than Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation than Texas. I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case. xponent No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru rob So what do you think now? Well California is being shorted 12 Representatives. You think they are going to throw a fit if some other states get only a little bit better represented? Right now they are shorted a lot. xponent Status Quotient Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:09 PM Tuesday 4/26/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?G IIRC, the figure of 8000+ members of the House I mentioned a few days ago was based on each representative having the same number of constituents, and that number being what it was before the total number of representatives (or something like that: I'm sure of the first, anyway. Of course, I don't happen to recall a reference . . . ) If we used 1780 numbers you would get those kind of numbers. I'm thinking more along the lines of using the smallest populated district as the benchmark, and then you only gain a couple hundred Reps initially. The number of constituents per Rep can change, but any Rep should represent the same number of people as any other Rep. xponent Done Right Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:09 PM Tuesday 4/26/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?G IIRC, the figure of 8000+ members of the House I mentioned a few days ago was based on each representative having the same number of constituents, and that number being what it was before the total number of representatives (or something like that: I'm sure of the first, anyway. Of course, I don't happen to recall a reference . . . 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
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. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
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 congressmanand 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
Re: US voting reform idea
Count Maru wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant (although they could conceivably suprise someday) but the Electoral College itself does have some interesting properties as compared to a straight majority vote: From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny By Will Hively September 30, 2004 I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address the way low population states are spotted (overall) a few extra electors as compared with high population states. This intentionally skews the overall number of electors and the allotment of electors for dense population areas. This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It was a compromise between a vote of the people and a vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president directly elected by the people, but I also have some compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries). I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, and does not take into account that it might be the other way around. He also states that a high voting power is a safeguard against tyranny (voting power being the amount one voter's decision can influence the overall result). Then he uses some math to explore the voting power in his ideal system, in which people in all states vote similar, but fails to adress the real situation where most states lean heavily to one side or the other. If someone lives in such a state, his voting power is near zero: either if the vote is close nationwide, then his own state clearly falls to one party, and while his state matters in the nation, his vote does not matter in his state. If the other party becomes stronger, his state might become close, and his votes matters there, but his state doesn't matter in the nation where the other party won by a landslide. If someone lives in a swing state, however, the voting power is very high when the nationwide vote is close, because then his vote matters in the state and the state matters in the nation. If the nationwide vote is leaning to one side, his voting power is near zero. So in a nationwide vote leaning to one side, people in all states have a voting power of near zero. In a close vote, people in swing states have a high voting power while the others still have a power near zero. In contrast, if the election was direct, all people would have an equal voting power. If it was close, it would be much lower than in a swing state in the current model, but the sum of the voting powers of all people would be similar to the sum in the current model; just the inequality of voting power would go away. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Frank Schmidt wrote: Count Maru wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant (although they could conceivably suprise someday) but the Electoral College itself does have some interesting properties as compared to a straight majority vote: From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny By Will Hively September 30, 2004 I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address the way low population states are spotted (overall) a few extra electors as compared with high population states. This intentionally skews the overall number of electors and the allotment of electors for dense population areas. This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It was a compromise between a vote of the people and a vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president directly elected by the people, but I also have some compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries). Urk...you mistake what I was talking about. Several decades ago congress set a limit to the number of representatives sent to congress. The effect this has today is that in my state a representative has 500,000 to 600,00 constituents while in the least populous states a representative has a scotch over 400,000 constituents. This gives an inordinate amount of power to those in less populous states and I resent that people in the hinterlands get better representation everyday that I do. This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?G I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, and does not take into account that it might be the other way around. Pretty much the same way the war is justified in a sense. xponent I Supported The War For Humanitarian Reasons And Remember Feeling Alone Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
At 09:09 PM Tuesday 4/26/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?G IIRC, the figure of 8000+ members of the House I mentioned a few days ago was based on each representative having the same number of constituents, and that number being what it was before the total number of representatives (or something like that: I'm sure of the first, anyway. Of course, I don't happen to recall a reference . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
There has been a great deal of work on voting science over the past ~200 years. Unfortunately, the conclusions are it depends. Is the system you describe better than the current system? It depends on what is considered important. Here is a summary of vote aggregation methods and some ways to measure their efficiency and fairness: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node4.html snip I have read something like that before; I've still bookmarked it so I might find a new perspective there when I read it later. However, the fact that no system is perfect doesn't mean no system is better than the current one. In my proposal, I decided to keep most as it is, but remove the spoiler problem, electors and gerrymandering, and allow the representation of district minorities in the House. As for electors, back when they were introduced they were important people in their states, which the people knew, which would then vote for a president, which the people didn't know. In the present, the people know who runs for president, but not the electors. There still are electors, but they don't have anything to decide anymore these days. -- +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
* Frank Schmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, the fact that no system is perfect doesn't mean no system is better than the current one. Who claimed otherwise? The problem is with deciding criteria. You didn't explain what criteria you were using to decide what is better, and why. As for electors, back when they were introduced they were important people in their states, which the people knew, which would then vote for a president, which the people didn't know. In the present, the people know who runs for president, but not the electors. There still are electors, but they don't have anything to decide anymore these days. The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant (although they could conceivably suprise someday) but the Electoral College itself does have some interesting properties as compared to a straight majority vote: From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny By Will Hively September 30, 2004 This article about the electoral college originally appeared in the November 1996 issue of Discover. Some of our readers thought it would be a good idea to feature it again this election year. We agree. --The editors When you cast your vote this month, you're not directly electing the president.you're electing members of the electoral college. They elect the president. An archaic, unnecessary system? Mathematics shows, says one concerned American, that by giving your vote to another, you're ensuring the future of our democracy. *** Math Against Tyranny Discover, Nov. 1996 One morning at two o'clock, Alan Natapoff recalls, I realized that I was the only person willing to see this problem through to the end. The morning in question was back in the late 1970s. Then as now, Natapoff, a physicist, was spending his days doing research at mit's Man-Vehicle Laboratory, investigating how the human brain responds to acceleration, weightless floating, and other vexations of contemporary transport. But the problem he was working on so late involved larger and grander issues. He was contemplating the survival of our nation as we know it. Not long before Natapoff's epiphany, Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world. This group of ordinary citizens, elected by all who vote, elects, in turn, the nation's president and vice president. Though the college still stood, Natapoff worried that sometime soon, well-meaning reformers might try again to destroy it. The only way to prevent such a tragedy, he thought, would be to get people to understand the real but hidden value of our peculiar, roundabout voting procedure. He'd have to dig down to basic principles. He'd have to give them a mathematical explanation of why we need the electoral college. Natapoff's self-chosen labor has taken him more than two decades. But now that the journal Public Choice is about to publish his groundbreaking article, he can finally relax a bit; he might even take a vacation. In addition to this nontechnical article, which skimps on the math, he's worked out a formal theorem that demonstrates, he claims, why our complex electoral system is provably better than a simple, direct election. Furthermore, he adds, without this quirky glitch in the system, our democracy might well have fallen apart long ago into warring factions. This month many of us are playing our allotted role in the drama that's haunted Natapoff for so long. Ostensibly, by voting on November 5, we are choosing the next president of the United States. Nine weeks after the apparent winner celebrates victory, however, Congress will count not our votes but those of 538 electors, distributed proportionally among the states. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has seats in Congress--California has 54, New York has 33, the seven least populated states have 3 each; the District of Columbia also has 3. These 538 votes actually elect the president. And the electors who cast them don't always choose the popular-vote winner. In 1888, the classic example, Grover Cleveland got 48.6 percent of the popular vote versus Benjamin Harrison's 47.9 percent. Cleveland won by 100,456 votes. But the electors chose Harrison, overwhelmingly (233 to 168). They were not acting perversely. According to the rules laid out in the Constitution, Harrison was the winner. Some reversals have been more complicated. In 1824, Andrew Jackson beat his rival, John Quincy Adams, by more popular and then more electoral votes--99 versus 84--but still lost the election because he didn't win a majority of electoral votes (78 went to other candidates). When that happens, the House of Representatives picks the winner. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote, though he received 50.9 percent of the popular vote to Hayes's 47.9 percent; an extraordinary commission awarded 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes. We've also had some famous close calls. In 1960, John F.
Re: US voting reform idea
Erik Reuter wrote: The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant (although they could conceivably suprise someday) but the Electoral College itself does have some interesting properties as compared to a straight majority vote: From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny By Will Hively September 30, 2004 I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address the way low population states are spotted (overall) a few extra electors as compared with high population states. This intentionally skews the overall number of electors and the allotment of electors for dense population areas. Doesn't that seem to make our system a bit less democratic than it could be? A bit less fair? A bit less accurate in regards to the intent of the design of the system? xponent The Count Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US voting reform idea
Several months ago, I found the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD) at www.fairvote.org. If I had to sum up their program in once sentence, they want every US citizen to be able to cast a vote that matters. One of their reform ideas, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is being supported by influential people like Howard Dean and John McCain. In IRV (also called STV), you can vote for a candidate you really like without fearing to waste your vote, because you can mark candidates as being your first, second or third choice (or even more). If your first choice candidate ends up getting few votes, your vote will be transferred to your second choice candidate. If that candidate has also got only a few votes, it will be transferred to your third choice. When one of the candidates has more than half of the votes, the procedure ends, and that candidate is elected. (This could also happen in the first round of counting) IRV has been shown to change the way campaigns are made where its already in use. Currently you have to prevent other candidates to be chosen as voters first choices, so you must attack all other candidates. With IRV you can appeal directly to the voters with your program, getting second choices is good, and attacking other candidates might deny you their voters second choice. Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) in house and winner-takes-all in presidential elections. But youd better go to their site yourself, Ive probably forgot something here. Now the problem is, most of these goals can only be reached by constitutional change, which needs the support of 2/3 of Representatives, 2/3 of Senators and ¾ of the states. Some however need just a change of laws: for electors and Senators this would be state laws, for Representatives federal laws. Now Id like to know what you think of my following reform proposal (based in part on CVD ideas): Short-term (law changes): Senators and electors get elected with IRV; this eliminates the spoiler problem House gets enlarged to 600, allocation method switches to Adams (the enlargement benefits the large states, the switch the small ones) The states now draw district borders for multi-member districts, instead of the current single-member ones. Inside these districts seats get distributed by Proportional Representation. Due to this, the minority in the district gets represented fairly, while now only district majorities get represented. Due to the enlargement, the fairer representation wont automatically endanger the current Representatives. I think these changes would make voting fairer, and increase turnout since the minority (in a district/state) now has the chance to get represented. Fringe parties are unlikely unless the number of Representatives in a districts gets really large. However, a third party could get Representatives through if they get enough support. A party split however will likely hurt both factions, and likely would deny the weaker faction a seat (again, unless the number of Reps/district gets large). Long term (constitutional changes): Right to vote and easy access to getting registered to vote US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) The President gets elected directly, with IRV. As a compensation, all states get 2 representatives extra (so the smallest one would have 3, and the minority there is represented in the House) The primary system gets changed. (This is a long proposal, because it doesnt produce one winner, but several candiates) Currently it throws out candidates of the two strong parties, who might win the election if they were nominated, but allows candidates of weaker parties in who dont have any chance to win. Also, some states always get the advantage of having their primaries first, while others only have theirs when there is already a winner. Party conventions have become meaningless, they only have to cheer. I propose an open system: #1: First, the order of primaries in the states is determined by random draw. Primaries are held in rounds: in round 1, one state holds a primary, in round 2 two, and so on. #2: Then, candidates have to collect a number of signatures nationwide (not necessarily in every state) to get on a list of preliminary candidates. This list is used for each of the primaries. #3: Then, in a primary, voters can vote for up to 3 candidates from the preliminary list (each can get only 1 vote). #4: Then votes are counted. Percentages are calculated by dividing the number of votes for one candidate by the number of all voters. If the best candidate gets over 50%, all candidates with at least 25% qualify, if the best
Re: US voting reform idea
A few comments interspersed: At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: Several months ago, I found the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD) at www.fairvote.org. If I had to sum up their program in once sentence, they want every US citizen to be able to cast a vote that matters. One of their reform ideas, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is being supported by influential people like Howard Dean and John McCain. In IRV (also called STV), you can vote for a candidate you really like without fearing to waste your vote, because you can mark candidates as being your first, second or third choice (or even more). If your first choice candidate ends up getting few votes, your vote will be transferred to your second choice candidate. If that candidate has also got only a few votes, it will be transferred to your third choice. When one of the candidates has more than half of the votes, the procedure ends, and that candidate is elected. (This could also happen in the first round of counting) IRV has been shown to change the way campaigns are made where its already in use. Currently you have to prevent other candidates to be chosen as voters first choices, so you must attack all other candidates. With IRV you can appeal directly to the voters with your program, getting second choices is good, and attacking other candidates might deny you their voters second choice. Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) What about as a beginning following existing city or county lines? in house and winner-takes-all in presidential elections. But youd better go to their site yourself, Ive probably forgot something here. Now the problem is, most of these goals can only be reached by constitutional change, which needs the support of 2/3 of Representatives, 2/3 of Senators and ¾ of the states. Some however need just a change of laws: for electors and Senators this would be state laws, for Representatives federal laws. Now Id like to know what you think of my following reform proposal (based in part on CVD ideas): Short-term (law changes): Senators and electors get elected with IRV; this eliminates the spoiler problem House gets enlarged to 600, Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if one made the districts small enough that everyone in the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their representative as anything more than a name on the ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? Rebuild the Capitol? allocation method switches to Adams (the enlargement benefits the large states, the switch the small ones) The states now draw district borders for multi-member districts, instead of the current single-member ones. Inside these districts seats get distributed by Proportional Representation. Due to this, the minority in the district gets represented fairly, while now only district majorities get represented. Due to the enlargement, the fairer representation wont automatically endanger the current Representatives. I think these changes would make voting fairer, and increase turnout since the minority (in a district/state) now has the chance to get represented. Fringe parties are unlikely unless the number of Representatives in a districts gets really large. However, a third party could get Representatives through if they get enough support. A party split however will likely hurt both factions, and likely would deny the weaker faction a seat (again, unless the number of Reps/district gets large). Long term (constitutional changes): Right to vote and easy access to getting registered to vote US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) If they are in the military or employed overseas and can reasonably be expected to return to the States at some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee in the district of their home of record. If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should they have a say in how things are run in the US? The President gets elected directly, with IRV. As a compensation, all states get 2 representatives
Re: US voting reform idea
A few comments interspersed: A lot of my previous mail snipped to which Ronn didn't respond. At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? I'm for letting them vote. I'd make exceptions to not let jail populations vote in local elections, and the mentally incompetent if it's not really themselves, but someone else who votes. (I think it's this way here in Germany, and I remember how the 2000 election was heavily influenced by the exclusion of many black people on a 'felons list', many of which weren't even felons. I read that people remain marked as felons even when their jail term is over. If you give a detailed description what makes one a felon, I'm interested) and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) What about as a beginning following existing city or county lines? As a beginning. There will be a problem, however, if gerrymandering is ended only in Democrat-controlled states or only in Republican-controlled ones. And this doesn't answer the question of representation of the minority side in a district which might never get a chance to win. House gets enlarged to 600, Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if one made the districts small enough that everyone in the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their representative as anything more than a name on the ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? Rebuild the Capitol? If the House remains at 435 seats, many Representatives would lose their seats in a switch to multi-member districts. I would not mind, but I think a lot of Representatives would. The 7-Eleven problem can be half solved: while your Congressman will probably don't know you, you should know him and what he stands for. How else can you decide who to vote for? US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) If they are in the military or employed overseas and can reasonably be expected to return to the States at some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee in the district of their home of record. Agreed. I meant that when I wrote 'registered in any of them'. If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should they have a say in how things are run in the US? I meant US citizens living in US territories. They are under US control and are US citzens, so they should be represented. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
There has been a great deal of work on voting science over the past ~200 years. Unfortunately, the conclusions are it depends. Is the system you describe better than the current system? It depends on what is considered important. Here is a summary of vote aggregation methods and some ways to measure their efficiency and fairness: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node4.html Excerpt: The paradox of voting is the coexistence of coherent individual valuations and a collectively incoherent choice by majority rule. In an election with three or more alternatives (candidates, motions, etc.) and three or more voters, it may happen that when the alternatives are placed against each other in a series of paired comparisons, no alternative emerges victorious over each of the others: Voting fails to produce a clear-cut winner. William H. Riker, 1982 [86] The paradox of voting was discovered over 200 years ago by M. Condorcet, a French mathematician, philosopher, economist, and social scientist. However, it received little attention until Duncan Black [13] explained its significance in a series of essays he began in the 1940s. The importance of the voting paradox was not fully realized until several years after Kenneth Arrow published Social Choice and Individual Values [3] in 1951, which contained his General Possibility Theorem. The essence of this theorem is that there is no method of aggregating individual preferences over three or more alternatives that satisfies several conditions of fairness and always produces a logical result. Arrow's precisely defined conditions of fairness and logicality have been the subject of scrutiny by other scholars. However, none have found a way of relaxing one or more of these conditions that results in a generally satisfactory voting system immune from the voting paradox. Thus Arrow's theorem has the profound implication that in many situations there is no fair and logical way of aggregating individual preferences -- there is no way to determine accurately the collective will of the people. Social choice theorists have invented many vote aggregation systems and have attempted to determine the most appropriate systems for a variety of voting situations. Although there is some agreement about which characteristics are desirable in a vote aggregation system, there is much disagreement as to which characteristics are most important. In addition, the selection is often influenced more by political circumstances than by the advice of theorists. Thus the popularity of a voting system is not necessarily an indication of its fairness [66]. The choice of a vote aggregation system can influence much more than the results of an election. It can also influence the ability of analysts to interpret election results, and in turn the ability of representatives to understand the wishes of the people they represent and the satisfaction of the electorate that they have had the opportunity to express themselves. This is due to the fact that the various vote aggregation systems require voters to supply varying amounts of information about their preferences and that some systems tend to encourage voters to report their preferences insincerely. In addition, the choice of vote aggregation system could affect the stability of a government, the degree to which an organization embraces or resists change, and the extent to which minorities are represented. It could also affect the ability of the members of an organization to achieve compromise. This section explores the many types of vote aggregation systems ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
