IF the election results were reversed...

[TheHuckster]

Not all states are created equal. Rhode Island shouldn't have the same say as New York. # of voters should trump everything else.

Well, actually, Rhode Island doesn't have the same say as New York in the EC. You might be thinking of senators, where each state has two. Each state has electors based on the state's population, so Rhode Island has 4 electors, while New York has 29.

Which makes the whole thing seem even more silly to me. If they base the tally on electoral votes separated by state lines, and each state gets a number of electors more or less proportional to their population, then what's the point, other than to convolute the whole thing?

[Gravekeeper]

Which makes the whole thing seem even more silly to me. If they base the tally on electoral votes separated by state lines, and each state gets a number of electors more or less proportional to their population, then what's the point, other than to convolute the whole thing?

Well, it has no point in modern politics. However, the point in keeping it is that its easy to manipulate at a state level. As long as the states have control over the voting and redistricting processes they can influence the outcome with voter ID laws, gerrymandering, etc.

If the system and guidelines were a direct federal vote maybe you could get rid of all these patchwork layers of failure, incompetence, outdated tech, etc that form the morass of the voting system.

[mjr]

Which makes the whole thing seem even more silly to me. If they base the tally on electoral votes separated by state lines, and each state gets a number of electors more or less proportional to their population, then what's the point, other than to convolute the whole thing?

That's kinda right. The number of electors are based upon the number of federal representatives plus the two senators.

So with your example of NY having 29 electors, it's because they have 27 Federal Representatives and two senators.

Texas has 36 Reps and 2 Senators.

California has 53 Reps and 2 Senators

Apportionment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._apportionment

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Right but the majority of people who live in this country didn't want that candidate.

Under the EC that's actually ok. I think the bigger issue facing the Republic is actually the Urban/Rural split and what that's meant for voting in general. The original constitution was designed to create separation of power by design. A bigger problem is what just happened in NC - where the Republican party lost the Govornorship and responded by nerfing the powers of the executive branch. Thing is, when the current Constitution seems to actually outwardly favor partisan Gerrymandering at the state level, you can make the EC stops being a check and actually becomes the thing that inhibits checking. Flat out, 1700's Federalism doesn't exist anymore because we've removed the class-based systems that helped make those checks and balances make sense.

It's not so much that the Democrats lost the Presidential election. That happens. It's that if you look at the complete and scope of utter defeat, a case can probably be made that the system has been gamed to too great a degree.

The Democrats won the popular vote. They are the minority in the State govornerships, majority of state legislatures, minority of the Senate, minority of the House, soon to be great minority of the Supreme Court. For the most part, that's your issue. It is probably in the Republicans best interest that the Democrats are focusing on the EC, because its the smallest part of their problem right now. Part of that has ultimately been the Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in unjust redistricting. The technology is just too good to pretend these parties can't simply run some equations, make some laws and suppress the vote. Ultimately, if there's one check that should have happened here, it would be a Democratic president.

Districting has to be pulled out of the hands of legislatures and needs us to do the opposite of what we're doing now. Rather than using technology to minimize competitive districts, those districts need to be maximized. And I would support a federal constitutional amendment that states as such. The reluctance of the SC to intervene has ultimately meant one party has gamed almost total legislative control since 92. The House has been Republican 10 of 12 sessions. The Senate has really been the even split.

TL;DR Version - If the other branches of Government actually represented a majority urban voters or was at least splitting more equitably, the EC is a good check. As it stands, the case could be made it is an oppressive institution.

[mjr]

I think the bigger issue facing the Republic is actually the Urban/Rural split and what that's meant for voting in general.

In your opinion, what's causing this split? Are you talking about politically, ideologically, or what? And how can it be "fixed"? In a general sense, it may be difficult to get a split like that fixed. It does seem to be a split along socioeconomic lines as well. There are people (I don't know exact numbers) who live in Rural areas who don't want to move to Urban areas, and vice versa. There are probably Urban people who could afford to move to more rural areas, but choose not to.

A bigger problem is what just happened in NC - where the Republican party lost the Govornorship and responded by nerfing the powers of the executive branch.

Yeah, for sure. That guy was a pain in the butt. That was a very, very bad move on the part of NC Republicans. But was it the NC Republican party in general, or was it just the governor?

It's not so much that the Democrats lost the Presidential election. That happens. It's that if you look at the complete and scope of utter defeat, a case can probably be made that the system has been gamed to too great a degree.

The Democrats won the popular vote. They are the minority in the State govornerships, majority of state legislatures, minority of the Senate, minority of the House, soon to be great minority of the Supreme Court.

Many of those places have been Republican strongholds for years, anyway. I wonder how the governorships/legislatures match up with the electoral map.

Rather than using technology to minimize competitive districts, those districts need to be maximized.

Ok, but how would that be done? The courts can't mandate that each district contain the makeup of the general population of that state. Because the population isn't evenly distributed.

[Canarr]

# of voters should trump everything else.

Okay, I'm a little confused... didn't you recently state that,

The democratic approach doesn't work when uneducated people vote. That's how we end up with Trump.

?

Yes, I understand that by popular vote, Clinton would have been elected President. But unfortunately, that's never a sure thing when "uneducated people vote".

So: should the number of voters really always trump? Even if they don't vote the way you think they should?

[s_stabeler]

Ok, but how would that be done? The courts can't mandate that each district contain the makeup of the general population of that state. Because the population isn't evenly distributed.

Ban political affiliation from being used as a criteria for redrawing districts. I'd even go so far as to say that a computer should be used to create the districts, with there being only three inputs: a map of the state, the number of people in a Congressional district, and the population of the state. The idea is to create districts that are about the same amount of population, without gerrymandering the districts.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

In your opinion, what's causing this split? Are you talking about politically, ideologically, or what? And how can it be "fixed"? In a general sense, it may be difficult to get a split like that fixed. It does seem to be a split along socioeconomic lines as well. There are people (I don't know exact numbers) who live in Rural areas who don't want to move to Urban areas, and vice versa. There are probably Urban people who could afford to move to more rural areas, but choose not to.

They are flat out different electorates and the overall trend has been towards Urbanization. Take an issue like guns and you can see that there are flatly different scenarios behind usage and requirement. Take another like lbgt and you can see statistically one group has far less exposure than another. That's without getting into White Flight that birthed the modern suburb. I'm not calling them racists, I'm saying that was the demographic that created it.

The issue isn't so much that they are different. It's that two things are now true - the old system that was meant to make sure both groups are sufficiently represented are now only really benefiting one group through selective changes that were made. Urban voters don't have a chance in National elections which are based on States actions whose state voting is district to favor rural votes. It's just game over.

Yeah, for sure. That guy was a pain in the butt. That was a very, very bad move on the part of NC Republicans. But was it the NC Republican party in general, or was it just the governor?

Both. The law was something the legislature tried to pass that the Governor wouldn't sign until he left office.

Many of those places have been Republican strongholds for years, anyway. I wonder how the governorships/legislatures match up with the electoral map.

Quite a few. But there's the rub - we're getting to the point that the way we originally drew the lines can only benefit one side because we are majority rural states. That doesn't mean there aren't urban centers in them, its just they tend to be outvoted eventhough overall urban centers are a greater proportion of the population nationally. The cities are highly concetrated in specific urban states.

Ok, but how would that be done? The courts can't mandate that each district contain the makeup of the general population of that state. Because the population isn't evenly distributed.

The choice whether or not to engage obviously politically gerrymandered maps has been challenged and has been rejected by the courts. It's not that they can't, its that they won't (a changeable precedent but certainly not one a Trump appointee would change). They HAVE invalidated districts along racial lines which (suprise, suprise) are also political.

I honestly think it's pretty simple. The computing horsepower exists (which is why almost nothing is competitive anymore legislatively.) Amend the constitution that voting districts require 5 things: 1) Do not suppress racial voting(existing), 2) are apportioned on population evenly(existing), 3) the number of competitive districts are maximized, 4) The number of safe districts are even within 5-10%, 5) The test for the meeting of this requirement is House and Senate representation within 5-10(or within 1 vote since some states have very few Reps)% of total state #'s.

So I can't use Cornyn as an example, but lets use Ted Cruz. Cruz won a Texas wide election 60% to 40% in a heavy Republican year. That jives with Clinton's #'s this year as well. House representation from Texas is 25/36 republican or 71%. So districting is causing an 11% jump. That's unreasonable. Texas won't change it because what about New York and California? So flat out, remove that discretion from the States and the Fed. Make it an equation that doesn't care. Is the point of an election accurate proportional representation or winning? Anyone who says the latter we should not be listening to as that's pretty much the well-worn road towards autocracy.

If states want to maintain their own crappy State districting, let them. But remove their ability to railroad the national process which we have about 300 years of evidence that they do this. Gerrymandering is very old. In 2016, I don't think its unreasonable we stop pretending its fair and stop pretending we can't do better.

[mjr]

Ban political affiliation from being used as a criteria for redrawing districts. I'd even go so far as to say that a computer should be used to create the districts, with there being only three inputs: a map of the state, the number of people in a Congressional district, and the population of the state. The idea is to create districts that are about the same amount of population, without gerrymandering the districts.

That's a rather sound idea. Though I think it still may not affect certain areas that much. For instance, here in Texas where I live, most of the state is "Red". I don't think that would change with implementation of your idea.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The point isn't that you turn a Red State Blue or a Blue State Red. Anyone that thinks Illinois is turning Republican should just calm down. Texas isn't turning Blue this year. Republicans shouldn't have 75% House representation in Missouri when their state wide elections favor the Republican by 3% points.

The point should only be that politcal parties are not allowed to tack on extra voting by virtue of being the majority.

[mjr]

It's that two things are now true - the old system that was meant to make sure both groups are sufficiently represented are now only really benefiting one group through selective changes that were made.

To this point, I understand what you're saying. But then again, as has been pointed out as a concern, how do you "sufficiently represent" people who may be polar opposites on an issue? If you have a district of 50,000 voters (just throwing that number out there), and you have a 50/50 split on an issue, what happens then?

I get the concern, I really do. If I lived in a "blue" county, I'd probably have those same concerns.

Urban voters don't have a chance in National elections which are based on States actions whose state voting is district to favor rural votes. It's just game over.

Sometimes there's not a choice. IIRC, you live in Texas (as do I), so you know that the major cities in Texas are rather spread out. And the "suburbs" are loosely defined, and sometimes start getting into "sprawl". Most of Texas, though, is considered "Rural". In fact, here's a map designating the "Rural" counties from the "Metropolitan" ones.

https://www.texasagriculture.gov/Por...20Counties.pdf

Also, from here:

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs/hprc/counties.shtm

is the following quote:

"In Texas, 82 counties are designated as Metropolitan and 172 are designated as Non-Metropolitan."

That's 254 total counties, with over 2/3 being "non-metropolitan" (i.e. Rural).

And even doing the "redistricting", you wouldn't likely end up with Dallas (as a city/county) in one district, but several. And that might be offset by other places that it touches (the districts are very strangely shaped, and could be so using a computer as well).

That doesn't mean there aren't urban centers in them, its just they tend to be outvoted eventhough overall urban centers are a greater proportion of the population nationally. The cities are highly concetrated in specific urban states.

Something like California and New York would be the opposite. I understand that there are several "red" counties in California, but the "blue" ones are so populous that the residents outnumber them.

So I can't use Cornyn as an example, but lets use Ted Cruz. Cruz won a Texas wide election 60% to 40% in a heavy Republican year. That jives with Clinton's #'s this year as well. House representation from Texas is 25/36 republican or 71%. So districting is causing an 11% jump. That's unreasonable.

That's not necessarily unreasonable. I think some of it depends on voter turnout, too.

[wolfie]

Having said that, I personally think there needs to be reform of Congress as well.
1. introduce term limits. Or rather, length of term limits. Specifically, you can spend no more than 10 years in any one post- 10 years (lifetime total, not necessarily consecutive) as a Representative, 10 years as a Senator, 10 years as Vice President, 10 years as President.

There is already a 10 year limit for President. Constitutionally limited to 2 terms, and a VP who gets promoted can only run twice on their own if they served under half of their predecessor's term (if over half, they can only run once on their own). Probably better to have a limit on how many times they can be elected to the positions (5 times for Congresscritters, twice each for Senaturds and VP).

Ban political affiliation from being used as a criteria for redrawing districts. I'd even go so far as to say that a computer should be used to create the districts, with there being only three inputs: a map of the state, the number of people in a Congressional district, and the population of the state. The idea is to create districts that are about the same amount of population, without gerrymandering the districts.

The problem with that is that it's necessary to write a program to take those inputs and produce the desired output. Who reviews the source code to ensure that the programmers don't throw in a bias? If anything, that would be worse than the current system because as it stands, it's possible to point to the people who made the decision and blame them for gerrymandering. With a computer, the public would see an "unbiased black box", not realizing that it's doing exactly what a bunch of (out of the public eye) people told it to do.

[TheHuckster]

The problem with that is that it's necessary to write a program to take those inputs and produce the desired output. Who reviews the source code to ensure that the programmers don't throw in a bias? If anything, that would be worse than the current system because as it stands, it's possible to point to the people who made the decision and blame them for gerrymandering. With a computer, the public would see an "unbiased black box", not realizing that it's doing exactly what a bunch of (out of the public eye) people told it to do.

You could make the code open-source. Making the algorithm opaque would just add doubt and confusion to the whole thing, even if it were truly unbiased, since no matter what you do, there will be certain places or instances where the districting "seems" unfair.

[XCashier]

Ban political affiliation from being used as a criteria for redrawing districts. I'd even go so far as to say that a computer should be used to create the districts, with there being only three inputs: a map of the state, the number of people in a Congressional district, and the population of the state. The idea is to create districts that are about the same amount of population, without gerrymandering the districts.

Not a bad idea, but we'd have to make sure the person programming the computer isn't partisan, and that the computer cannot be hacked.

[mjr]

Not a bad idea, but we'd have to make sure the person programming the computer isn't partisan, and that the computer cannot be hacked.

The first part of that is probably harder than the second part. I'd think with some good, solid security measures (data encryption, strong passwords) the possibility of a hack could be reduced.

If I were to do something like that, I think I'd feel compelled to make the system fair.