tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post2151940427759103766..comments2023-11-05T03:45:25.001-08:00Comments on God Plays Dice: The 2000 election, eight years laterMichael Lugohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671307315028242949noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-67491607376199230892008-07-26T09:33:00.000-07:002008-07-26T09:33:00.000-07:00Jonathan, you are correct. The states should elimi...Jonathan, you are correct. The states should eliminate the winner-take-all convention with respect to the Electoral College votes (and award the 2 "senator" electors to the winner of the state-wide vote). Maine and Nebraska are already doing that. That is a state-by-state decision (absent a Constitutional amendment to the contrary).J. E. Quidamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155086596915065556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-82713076408088164632008-07-26T09:29:00.000-07:002008-07-26T09:29:00.000-07:00Isabel, it would require a Constitutional amendmen...<B>Isabel, it would require a Constitutional amendment to create über federal districts that cross state lines</B> and, I can assure you, such an amendment would never be ratified in this country. The biggest opposition would come from the low-population states who would not want their federal representation subsumed into larger regions. If such districts were established, I believe that the smallest states (if not all states) would effectively cease to exist as sovereignties and the mega extra-state federal districts would eventually evolve into pseudo-sovereign entities. Consequently, myself, and many Americans, would oppose such a development using <I>every possible means at our disposal</I>, which is why such an amendment would never see the light of day.<BR/> <BR/>In any case, it is generally becoming recognized that the number of congressional districts will have to be significantly increased in order to ensure the existence of Majority-Minority Districts (i.e., districts where the majority of residents are members of an ethnic minority). That is simply a mathematical urgency.<BR/><BR/><B>The fundamental objective of making the districts smaller (and increasing their number) is to take political power away from powerful special interests and return it to the citizenry.</B> With respect to that objective, bloated equally-sized federal districts would accomplish nothing. <BR/> <BR/>Most questions people have about this subject are answered in the 15 <I>Questions and Answers</I> on TTO's home page.J. E. Quidamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155086596915065556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-19368335042683712412008-07-26T07:31:00.000-07:002008-07-26T07:31:00.000-07:00Another, similarly directed possibility: do as Neb...Another, similarly directed possibility: do as Nebraska and Maine do, and elect 2 presidential electors at-large from that state, and 1 each directly from each congressional district.<BR/><BR/>Strange, that seems more direct, yet I have a funny feeling that it would not have moved the election (as so much of the Democratic vote is concentrated in lopsided urban districts).<BR/><BR/>But "why 435?" is a great question. Why have states at all may be a better one.<BR/><BR/>JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-36430715019099754372008-07-26T06:24:00.000-07:002008-07-26T06:24:00.000-07:00In response to your last comment, there seems to b...In response to your last comment, there seems to be another solution that doesn't require enlarging the House. Why not have Representatives be elected from districts that aren't entirely in one state?Michael Lugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671307315028242949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-63989838288846962692008-07-26T05:47:00.000-07:002008-07-26T05:47:00.000-07:00Isabel, there is an important point to add to your...Isabel, there is an important point to add to your observation, which was: "<I>Of course the noise isn't actually random, coming as it does directly from the populations of the states, but the dependence on the state populations is so complicated that we might as well think of it as random.</I>" <BR/> <BR/>There is something else happening that is little understood: because of the small number of congressional districts (435 relative to a population of 300,000,000) the districts are <B>not</B> equally sized nationwide (even though they are equally sized <I>within</I> each state). As a result, some districts are 25% to 80% larger than others (in violation of "one person one vote"). <BR/> <BR/>As an extension of that, various states are either over- or under-represented in the federal House <I>relative to their populations.</I> For example, Oregon's share of federal <I>representation</I> is 94.35% of their share of the states' total <I>population</I> (as a result of the 2000 apportionment). <BR/><BR/>Consequently, as the number of districts is increased, these discrepancies diminish and the <I>electoral college</I> vote approaches the <I>popular vote</I> asymptotically. <BR/> <BR/>For anyone who is interested in learning more, I'm working on a paper which explains all this.J. E. Quidamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155086596915065556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-17765650313168996592008-07-25T22:47:00.000-07:002008-07-25T22:47:00.000-07:00My feeling on the size of the House and Senate is ...My feeling on the size of the House and Senate is exactly the opposite of the "30,000" group.<BR/><BR/>When the size of the deliberating body becomes too large, it becomes too political and it becomes impossible for it to find decent compromises. I would prefer that they cut the Senate down to 50 senators, and the house to around 100.CarlBrannenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180079098492232258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-58981968595324271282008-07-25T17:52:00.000-07:002008-07-25T17:52:00.000-07:00Our total number of Representatives to the U.S. Ho...<B>Our total number of Representatives to the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913</B> (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437). In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated: <BR/>"<I>I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.</I>" <BR/><BR/>The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: <I>is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?</I><BR/><BR/><B>Please read the 15 <I>Questions & Answers</I> on the home page at:</B><BR/>http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org<BR/><BR/>Related to this subject, read about the now forgotten first amendment inscribed on our <I>Bill of Rights</I>:<BR/>http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com<BR/><BR/><I>Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.</I>J. E. Quidamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155086596915065556noreply@blogger.com