Britain's elections yesterday illustrate one of the pitfalls of a multiparty first-past-the-post system. The Conservatives got about 37% of the vote, but they'll control pretty close to 50% of the government. UKIP received substantially more votes than SNP (the Scottish independence party), but will have many fewer seats in parliament. There are alternatives to FPTP (instant runoff, proportional representation), and our own system has some issues (e.g. Democrats collectively received a few million more votes for House than Republicans in 2012), but other systems have issues as well.

 

This is what I have thought should happen with Congress. Instead of breaking each state up by districts, each party has a slate of candidates for the state. Voters vote for one party's slate of candidates. Taking Indiana for example, if 56% voted Republican, 36% voted Democrat, and 8% voted Libertarian, then the Republicans would get 5 seats, the Democrats 3 and the Libertarians 1. Then we don't get gerrymandered districts that result in a party getting less than 60% of the vote but almost 80% of the seats in the state.

There's a few dozen countries that use at least one form or another for at least one chamber of their government:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_..._representation

This is what I have thought should happen with Congress. Instead of breaking each state up by districts, each party has a slate of candidates for the state. Voters vote for one party's slate of candidates. Taking Indiana for example, if 56% voted Republican, 36% voted Democrat, and 8% voted Libertarian, then the Republicans would get 5 seats, the Democrats 3 and the Libertarians 1. Then we don't get gerrymandered districts that result in a party getting less than 60% of the vote but almost 80% of the seats in the state.

 

The rural areas will go un/underrepresented if they don't have specific people to vote for.

The rural areas will go un/underrepresented if they don't have specific people to vote for.

 

Most rural areas get gerrymandered in with cities as it is anyway.

Most rural areas get gerrymandered in with cities as it is anyway.

 

To a point. But take Illinois for example. Basically anything south of I-80 is going to be ignored in favor of everyone north of it.

And let's not pretend like both parties don't gerrymander and/or receive the benefits of it. I'm curious if all things considered each party wins out equally. I'd bet it's close.

And let's not pretend like both parties don't gerrymander and/or receive the benefits of it. I'm curious if all things considered each party wins out equally. I'd bet it's close.

 

My idea isn't really designed to benefit either party. The purpose is to make everybody's vote count for something. If you are a Republican in a 75% Democratic district, you might stay home on Election Day because the result is inevitable, but if you can contribute to a statewide vote where it's really close as to whether your party gets 4 or 5 of the seats from your state, then your vote is worth something.

My idea isn't really designed to benefit either party. The purpose is to make everybody's vote count for something. If you are a Republican in a 75% Democratic district, you might stay home on Election Day because the result is inevitable, but if you can contribute to a statewide vote where it's really close as to whether your party gets 4 or 5 of the seats from your state, then your vote is worth something.

 

But it would, or potentially could, in the exact same way you're wanting to fix. If you're taking popular votes in Illinois it's going to be mostly Dems. So not only will you have more Dems, but you'll have Chicago Metro Dems. At least now you have 7-8 House districts outside of the Metro area. People down south can at least have SOME kind of representation for their issues.

But it would, or potentially could, in the exact same way you're wanting to fix. If you're taking popular votes in Illinois it's going to be mostly Dems. So not only will you have more Dems, but you'll have Chicago Metro Dems. At least now you have 7-8 House districts outside of the Metro area. People down south can at least have SOME kind of representation for their issues.

 

In 2014, the popular vote in Illinois was 51.4% for D and 48.6% for R. The seat distribution was 10 for D and 8 for R, which lines up with the popular vote so I don't think things would change a lot.

And let's not pretend like both parties don't gerrymander and/or receive the benefits of it. I'm curious if all things considered each party wins out equally. I'd bet it's close.

It's something like a net gain of 7 or 8 seats for Republicans right now. This was enabled by their wave election in 2010 (redistricting is every 10 years after a census).

It's something like a net gain of 7 or 8 seats for Republicans right now. This was enabled by their wave election in 2010 (redistricting is every 10 years after a census).

 

Yeah, if you use the 2014 vote totals and implement this system, the Republicans lose a handful of seats. Of course, the point of the system is to encourage more voters in highly partisan districts to vote, so we don't know if that would be the true effect of the system.

Mark Halperin

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles...-freedom-summit

You don't lose attention for specific types of voters with proportional voting, they get more attention. A voting bloc that might comprise 5% of a state suddenly matters because that gets your party pretty close to a seat (or it does get you one, depending on the seat and specifics of the system).

One of the media writers at the DC-political magazine Politico gave this interesting description of how the media is looking at the race with Hillary Clinton:

...the national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate). Even before she announced her presidential bid, The New York Times alone had published more than 40 articles related to her private email account, spurring other stories across the national print, digital and television media. Since announcing her bid, the national media have spent the bulk of their time investigating potential lines of influence between Clinton Foundation donations/speaking fees and Clinton's actions as secretary of state. The Times, The Washington Post and others even struck deals for early access to anti-Clinton research.

Mark Halperin

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles...-freedom-summit

Is there anything more useless than this sort of political "analysis"

I'm more interested in finding out who is a fan of it.

Allen west: victim of sharia law

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/11/al...f-sharia/203610

Allen west: victim of sharia law

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/11/al...f-sharia/203610

 

Even for internet comments, there's some pretty special ones in there.

One of the media writers at the DC-political magazine Politico gave this interesting description of how the media is looking at the race with Hillary Clinton:

 

 

Greg happy! Hulk smash!

Greg happy! Hulk smash!

I just for the life of me cannot see why a great country like ours would put Hillary Clinton in charge. I mean are you serious?? David Letterman is retiring. Isn't Hillary older than Dave?

Why would a country with I-phones, amazing technology want somebody that old to be president? I just don't get it. I saw Bill Clinton on Letterman the other day and he seemed OLD. I mean, is Hillary prepared to lead us in a world with all these international tensions (beheadings, nuke threats, threats on our own soil, etc?) Why in the hell is Hillary Clinton a good choice to be president is all I want to know???

I've said it before and will say it until somebody explains it to me ... why is Hillary being awarded the oval office as some bizarre lifetime achievement award? Give her a participation trophy and let somebody with young ideas run the country.

I just don't get what people see in Hillary, who by all accounts is one, mean elderly woman. How much proof of this do we need???

 

Disclaimer: forgive me for the age bias thing. Perhaps I didn't word it with compassion but do we really want an elderly woman to be our president for 8 years??? Are you all going to be jumping for joy the day she wins the election?? If so, please tell Greg WHY??? Enlighten me.

Edited May 19, 201510 yr by greg775

I just for the life of me cannot see why a great country like ours would put Hillary Clinton in charge. I mean are you serious?? David Letterman is retiring. Isn't Hillary older than Dave?

Why would a country with I-phones, amazing technology want somebody that old to be president? I just don't get it. I saw Bill Clinton on Letterman the other day and he seemed OLD. I mean, is Hillary prepared to lead us in a world with all these international tensions (beheadings, nuke threats, threats on our own soil, etc?) Why in the hell is Hillary Clinton a good choice to be president is all I want to know???

I've said it before and will say it until somebody explains it to me ... why is Hillary being awarded the oval office as some bizarre lifetime achievement award? Give her a participation trophy and let somebody with young ideas run the country.

I just don't get what people see in Hillary, who by all accounts is one, mean elderly woman. How much proof of this do we need???

 

Disclaimer: forgive me for the age bias thing. Perhaps I didn't word it with compassion but do we really want an elderly woman to be our president for 8 years??? Are you all going to be jumping for joy the day she wins the election?? If so, please tell Greg WHY??? Enlighten me.

 

Did you really just refer to yourself in the third person?

 

I don't know why you think Hilary is a shoe in. Wait for the candidates to emerge, see a few debates/caucuses and then see where the wind blows. 2016 election is a long way off right meow.

 

I just for the life of me cannot see why a great country like ours would put Hillary Clinton in charge. I mean are you serious?? David Letterman is retiring. Isn't Hillary older than Dave?

Why would a country with I-phones, amazing technology want somebody that old to be president? I just don't get it. I saw Bill Clinton on Letterman the other day and he seemed OLD. I mean, is Hillary prepared to lead us in a world with all these international tensions (beheadings, nuke threats, threats on our own soil, etc?) Why in the hell is Hillary Clinton a good choice to be president is all I want to know???

I've said it before and will say it until somebody explains it to me ... why is Hillary being awarded the oval office as some bizarre lifetime achievement award? Give her a participation trophy and let somebody with young ideas run the country.

I just don't get what people see in Hillary, who by all accounts is one, mean elderly woman. How much proof of this do we need???

 

Disclaimer: forgive me for the age bias thing. Perhaps I didn't word it with compassion but do we really want an elderly woman to be our president for 8 years??? Are you all going to be jumping for joy the day she wins the election?? If so, please tell Greg WHY??? Enlighten me.

John McCain was 72 in the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton will turn 69 in October of 2016.

 

Asking for detailed health records for a person that age I have no issue with. Saying we shouldn't vote for someone because they're too old? Says more about you than about the person you're opposing.

Did you really just refer to yourself in the third person?

 

I don't know why you think Hilary is a shoe in. Wait for the candidates to emerge, see a few debates/caucuses and then see where the wind blows. 2016 election is a long way off right meow.

The article Caulfield posted said she was a lock. All I've heard is she's a lock. She just has to show up, so to speak, to win.

 

John McCain was 72 in the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton will turn 69 in October of 2016.

 

Asking for detailed health records for a person that age I have no issue with. Saying we shouldn't vote for someone because they're too old? Says more about you than about the person you're opposing.

You missed my point. YOUNG IDEAS are needed. Look at the technology. Look at the demands of the world. Several experts say we're going to have the worst depression in mankind and anarchy could (has it already?) hit the streets. I want somebody to tell me WHAT SHE BRINGS TO THE TABLE. I'm open. I just see nothing but a mean woman who, yes, is very old and has very very little to offer. Bill Clinton, who is normally very likeable, even he came across as a crusty jerk on Letterman the other day.

The article Caulfield posted said she was a lock. All I've heard is she's a lock. She just has to show up, so to speak, to win.

 

 

You missed my point. YOUNG IDEAS are needed. Look at the technology. Look at the demands of the world. Several experts say we're going to have the worst depression in mankind and anarchy could (has it already?) hit the streets. I want somebody to tell me WHAT SHE BRINGS TO THE TABLE. I'm open. I just see nothing but a mean woman who, yes, is very old and has very very little to offer. Bill Clinton, who is normally very likeable, even he came across as a crusty jerk on Letterman the other day.

Please tell me what these experts bring to the table and why I should believe a word they're saying. because this sounds like another heap of conspiratorial garbage.

Please tell me what these experts bring to the table and why I should believe a word they're saying. because this sounds like another heap of conspiratorial garbage.

I'm not sure but I've read reports we are in deep trouble financailly and I've seen the social unrest.