Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political Misrepresentation in the USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Political Misrepresentation in the USA

    The latest POTUS election is a prime example of Clinton winning millions of more votes from Americans but yet losing the election, a rarity in US history. This is something to look at, one can say it might be a good idea to have more Republican voters in NYC and to have more Democratic voters in Huntsville, Alabama. The US Gov should figure out a way to attract Democratic voters to areas that are today GOP majority and attract GOP voters to areas that are largely Democrat majority. Lets avoid in the future a POTUS losing a popular vote by not a few hundred but a few million. We also need to have better representation among states in the House of Representatives. This would be easy if large populations for example in NYC, Boston, Pittsburgh could be attracted to go west...Even things out if you will.

    The Senate Has Always Been Wildly Unrepresentative


    Its not at all clear whether that will work to the advantage of Democrats or Republicans in the future.

    So yes, the U.S. Senate is an unrepresentative anachronism. But it’s pretty much the same unrepresentative anachronism that it has been for a couple of centuries now. Last year Philip Bump of the Washington Post examined another gee-whiz statistic about the Senate — that by 2040, 70 percent of the population will live in just 15 states and thus select only 30 percent of U.S. Senators — and found that this wasn’t far off from historical averages. Neither is it all that big a change for a majority of the Senate to represent 18 percent of the population.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...going-to-stick

    Misrepresentation in the House of Representatives


    Misrepresentation in small and large states

    For individual states, misrepresentation is even larger. The level of misrepresentation is 20 percent or greater in 23 states—almost half the country—and over 30 percent in 12
    states.


    To a certain extent, misrepresentation is partly a function of state size. In small states with a single member—Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—there is no alternative to the votes of a portion of the citizens not being represented. In these states, on average, 37 percent of voters selected the losing party. Even states with two representatives—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, and Idaho—have a large degree of misrepresentation, on average 28 percent. This is not surprising in a winner-take-all system. Overall, the misrepresentation from these small states cancels out in the aggregate—in the 17 seats of these states there is only a 3 percentage point disparity between the distribution of votes and the distribution of seats.


    On the other extreme are the four largest states—New York, Florida, Texas, and California. Together, these states send 143 representatives to Congress. Each has less than 10 percent misrepresentation—votes from the losing party in one district are compensated in other districts. Moreover, the overall distribution from these states is the storybook picture of democracy at work: Between them, the distribution of votes and seats was equal, with less than 1 percent difference between votes and representation (45 percent for Republicans, 55 for Democrats).

    Misrepresentation in midsized states

    That leaves the 34 midsized states, with 275 seats among them, to account for the observed misrepresentation. Figure 4 plots the number of seats from each state against the level of misrepresentation. Large and small states are gray; midsized states are red. In general there is an inverse correlation between the number of representatives from a state and the level of misrepresentation. States with three to five representatives range between 11 to 36 percentage points of misrepresentation, while those with 10-20 representatives range from 4 to 24 percentage points of misrepresentation.

    ....

    Midsized red states have on average a considerably higher percent level of misrepresentation—in these states, while 58 percent of the votes went to Republicans, they took 76 percent of the seats—an 18 percentage point difference that translates into 34 seats. Comparatively, in the midsized blue states, 59 percent of votes were for Democrats, who obtained 72 percent of seats—a 13 percentage point difference that translates into 11 seats. Furthermore, red states make up nine of the 13 states with an excess of 20 points or higher misrepresentation.


    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...-in-the-house/
    Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

    George S Patton

  • #2
    Let's not. We already have the disaster of directly elected Senators. That's a major reason for the impasse in the Senate. Senators and the Senate were supposed to represent the individual states. As such, they were originally expected to be appointed by state legislatures or governors in some manner and would then represent their state's government in Washington.

    Direct election has turned the Senate into another House and brought on near perpetual gridlock. The above article wants to go further and push the Senate to be more representative of the population in their state with respect to party. That would be the final straw turning the Senate into truly a second House.

    By going to popular vote of Presidents we're tossing away any representation that smaller population states had in the election in favor of just a few large ones.

    You want to fix the electoral college? Abolish "winner take all" and apportion the electors according to the vote in each state. That would fix the problem better than a straight nationwide popular vote would. It likely would also mean that a Democrat couldn't get elected President...

    Comment


    • #3
      In places where the parties are more or less equally represented, Congress has redrawn the lines to make those districts fit - gerrymandering.

      Of course, ordering who populations around like that violates a huge number of laws as well.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        In places where the parties are more or less equally represented, Congress has redrawn the lines to make those districts fit - gerrymandering.

        Of course, ordering who populations around like that violates a huge number of laws as well.
        Congress is not responsible for redistricting congressional districts within each state. That is the responsibility of the individual state legislatures.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Let's not. We already have the disaster of directly elected Senators. That's a major reason for the impasse in the Senate. Senators and the Senate were supposed to represent the individual states. As such, they were originally expected to be appointed by state legislatures or governors in some manner and would then represent their state's government in Washington.
          Why is it a 'disaster'? Directly electing them is much better than having them appointed by a partisan state government.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Massena View Post

            Why is it a 'disaster'? Directly electing them is much better than having them appointed by a partisan state government.
            Because it gives states (eg., state governments) little or no say in federal politics. One of the original founding ideas of the United States was that states had Rights and that it was states that held more power than a strong central government.
            What direct election of senators did was simply change that dynamic. Now senators were elected in the same fashion as representatives to the house. The only difference is that senator's districts for all intents, are much larger.

            Having senators appointed by a partisan state government as opposed to being directly elected in a partisan election changed who got say-- The states versus the people. The senate is a repetition of the House now.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Because it gives states (eg., state governments) little or no say in federal politics. One of the original founding ideas of the United States was that states had Rights and that it was states that held more power than a strong central government.
              What direct election of senators did was simply change that dynamic. Now senators were elected in the same fashion as representatives to the house. The only difference is that senator's districts for all intents, are much larger.

              Having senators appointed by a partisan state government as opposed to being directly elected in a partisan election changed who got say-- The states versus the people. The senate is a repetition of the House now.
              Nonsense. It certainly gives the voters say in the federal government and that is very important-more important that partisan state legislatures. Your opinion makes no sense at all.

              The Senate's problem is Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow legislation passed by the House to get to the floor for a vote. He's also the person that refused to allow Obama's pick for the Supreme Court to get a fair hearing. There's your problem.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                Nonsense. It certainly gives the voters say in the federal government and that is very important-more important that partisan state legislatures. Your opinion makes no sense at all.
                The House was for giving the people a say. States got a say through the Senate. The President was the head of state for the nation.

                The Senate's problem is Moscow Mitch who refuses to allow legislation passed by the House to get to the floor for a vote. He's also the person that refused to allow Obama's pick for the Supreme Court to get a fair hearing. There's your problem.
                McConnell is no different than Harry Reid who was a world-class obstructionist when the Democrats ran the Senate, so your argument is simply partisan bickering. There's the problem. Direct election of Senators.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X