Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Taxation (and other governances of a citizen) without representation (& the EC)

Publius · 11-10-2004, 04:08 PM

I am glad to see that we have some good debate going here on how best to distribute the electorate votes so as to reach a better representation of the people. It took me a little bit of time with my spreadsheet to run some numbers to give you an idea of how different systems might look using the available numbers from this present election. I compared the number that were reached under our current system with those that might be reached under other alternate systems. The first of these alternative systems (henceforth known as AS) was one in which would distribute the E.V. by congressional district (working under the faulty presumption that each district would vote fore the same party for President as they did for congressional representative), doing the same with Senators as well (note: this is similar to the system suggested by djtestudo only it takes into account that many states often split their vote concerning Senate representatives. What can I say? I’m lazy and his formulation would be much more complicated to figure out, and I think would also defeat the purpose, but that’s my opinion). The second AS I compared would distribute E.V. as a % of the popular vote from each state (rounding in favor of the winner of each state when necessary). The last AS I analyzed compared what the E.V. would be if expressed as a % of the national vote. The answers I got were somewhat surprising and will be good for furthering our debate.

E.V. under the current system: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 252. Others 0.

AS E.V. 1, by Congressional District: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 244+3 from D.C. Others 2. Unaccounted for 3. (I am not sure why these are unaccounted for but I believe it is because either these seats are vacant or the vote is still too close to call.)

AS E.V. 2, as a % of state popular vote: Bush 278. Kerry 260. Others 0.

AS E.V. 3 as expressed as a % of national vote: Bush 274. Kerry 259. Others 5.

Now for the debate over what these numbers mean (if anything). The system that I found that would probably work best to both strengthen the E.V. while allowing matching up most closely with the express wish of the population of each state is AS 2 that would award E.V. based upon the % of votes each candidate received. There are several reasons I would argue for this system over the others. 1st the current system does not encourage the candidates to campaign in all of the country, rather only certain strongholds and swing states (and I think most people here are in agreement that something should be done to rectify the current system). Secondly, AS E.V. 1 would actually work against the goal we (or maybe just I) are working to achieve, that being a more accurate E.V. system that better reflects the will of the people. The reason I make this claim is because AS E.V. 1 would be prone to manipulation from the various state legislators (as SecretMethod70 rightly noted), and even baring this we would eventually run into the same problems we are experiencing with the current system, ie candidates would only campaign in those districts that they believed could be won and disregard the rest. Additionally, in most parts of the country anyway, it would be even more difficult for a 3rd party candidate to win votes under AS E.V.1 then under the current system. And lastly (and then I will move on to discuss the others) as many of you have probably noticed by now, AS E.V.1 would actually result in a greater disparity between the % of E.V. a candidate would receive and the national % in popular vote.
As I have stated before I am not in favor of completely disregarding the E.V. which, in effect, is what AS E.V. 3 is doing. I believe that AS E.V. 2 is the best of the available options that I have laid out because it not only retains the E.V. system (making it stronger in my opinion the our system that our founders current system) it also retains many of the good qualities of the current system. Under AS E.V.2 the E.V. in each state would run at large meaning that it would still be somewhat of a blind vote for your E.V. representative, but all voters (at least in a 2 party system) from each state would be represented in the final tally of E.V. ballots cast for president rather then whom ever wins the majority in each state (and I believe that this is the most important aspect of this system). Under this system I can imagine then that voter apathy would be reduces because each voter would know that their vote was really going to be counted and not disregarded if they were in the minority. This system would also open the door for 3rd parties (at least in the larger states, but you have to start somewhere). So anyway that’s my two-cents on this issue, I will be looking forward to hear all your opinions once you have had a chance to look over these numbers.

Ok, and now to address some of the other issues going on in this debate if I can. First, thanks to everyone for your feedback. I’m sorry I don’t have a newsletter SecretMethod70, I find that my posts here, although rare at times, are always quit lengthy as you may have noticed.

As for a map of congressional voting districts in this years election (djtestudo) the best I could find was one located at CNN and can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...house/map.html

Lastly, (but certainly not least) to your question Moskie concerning Madison’s claim that there existed a certain set of people who should not be represented in Congress. Although I have seen several people debate this topic in this post I am actually at a loss to see from where this claim arises. Would you be so kind as to supply the quote (or paraphrase) from Madison so I can better address this issue? (I’m probably just bind).

11-10-2004, 04:08 PM	#29 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	I am glad to see that we have some good debate going here on how best to distribute the electorate votes so as to reach a better representation of the people. It took me a little bit of time with my spreadsheet to run some numbers to give you an idea of how different systems might look using the available numbers from this present election. I compared the number that were reached under our current system with those that might be reached under other alternate systems. The first of these alternative systems (henceforth known as AS) was one in which would distribute the E.V. by congressional district (working under the faulty presumption that each district would vote fore the same party for President as they did for congressional representative), doing the same with Senators as well (note: this is similar to the system suggested by djtestudo only it takes into account that many states often split their vote concerning Senate representatives. What can I say? I’m lazy and his formulation would be much more complicated to figure out, and I think would also defeat the purpose, but that’s my opinion). The second AS I compared would distribute E.V. as a % of the popular vote from each state (rounding in favor of the winner of each state when necessary). The last AS I analyzed compared what the E.V. would be if expressed as a % of the national vote. The answers I got were somewhat surprising and will be good for furthering our debate. E.V. under the current system: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 252. Others 0. AS E.V. 1, by Congressional District: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 244+3 from D.C. Others 2. Unaccounted for 3. (I am not sure why these are unaccounted for but I believe it is because either these seats are vacant or the vote is still too close to call.) AS E.V. 2, as a % of state popular vote: Bush 278. Kerry 260. Others 0. AS E.V. 3 as expressed as a % of national vote: Bush 274. Kerry 259. Others 5. Now for the debate over what these numbers mean (if anything). The system that I found that would probably work best to both strengthen the E.V. while allowing matching up most closely with the express wish of the population of each state is AS 2 that would award E.V. based upon the % of votes each candidate received. There are several reasons I would argue for this system over the others. 1st the current system does not encourage the candidates to campaign in all of the country, rather only certain strongholds and swing states (and I think most people here are in agreement that something should be done to rectify the current system). Secondly, AS E.V. 1 would actually work against the goal we (or maybe just I) are working to achieve, that being a more accurate E.V. system that better reflects the will of the people. The reason I make this claim is because AS E.V. 1 would be prone to manipulation from the various state legislators (as SecretMethod70 rightly noted), and even baring this we would eventually run into the same problems we are experiencing with the current system, ie candidates would only campaign in those districts that they believed could be won and disregard the rest. Additionally, in most parts of the country anyway, it would be even more difficult for a 3rd party candidate to win votes under AS E.V.1 then under the current system. And lastly (and then I will move on to discuss the others) as many of you have probably noticed by now, AS E.V.1 would actually result in a greater disparity between the % of E.V. a candidate would receive and the national % in popular vote. As I have stated before I am not in favor of completely disregarding the E.V. which, in effect, is what AS E.V. 3 is doing. I believe that AS E.V. 2 is the best of the available options that I have laid out because it not only retains the E.V. system (making it stronger in my opinion the our system that our founders current system) it also retains many of the good qualities of the current system. Under AS E.V.2 the E.V. in each state would run at large meaning that it would still be somewhat of a blind vote for your E.V. representative, but all voters (at least in a 2 party system) from each state would be represented in the final tally of E.V. ballots cast for president rather then whom ever wins the majority in each state (and I believe that this is the most important aspect of this system). Under this system I can imagine then that voter apathy would be reduces because each voter would know that their vote was really going to be counted and not disregarded if they were in the minority. This system would also open the door for 3rd parties (at least in the larger states, but you have to start somewhere). So anyway that’s my two-cents on this issue, I will be looking forward to hear all your opinions once you have had a chance to look over these numbers. Ok, and now to address some of the other issues going on in this debate if I can. First, thanks to everyone for your feedback. I’m sorry I don’t have a newsletter SecretMethod70, I find that my posts here, although rare at times, are always quit lengthy as you may have noticed. As for a map of congressional voting districts in this years election (djtestudo) the best I could find was one located at CNN and can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...house/map.html Lastly, (but certainly not least) to your question Moskie concerning Madison’s claim that there existed a certain set of people who should not be represented in Congress. Although I have seen several people debate this topic in this post I am actually at a loss to see from where this claim arises. Would you be so kind as to supply the quote (or paraphrase) from Madison so I can better address this issue? (I’m probably just bind).