(08-26-2021 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.

Maybe not here, but any time the GOP makes gains, gerrymandering is listed as a reason by the MSM.

The gerrymandering by Illinois to eliminate a Republican (albeit a RINO) is just an example (not one the MSM will discuss)

(08-26-2021 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.

Maybe not here, but any time the GOP makes gains, gerrymandering is listed as a reason by the MSM.

The gerrymandering by Illinois to eliminate a Republican (albeit a RINO) is just an example (not one the MSM will discuss)

Not one the MSM will discuss... Posts article from Politico about the gerrymandering of Kinzinger's district.

Sorry, I always chuckle at these instances. It's funny when someone uses an article/clip from the MSM that points out exactly what the MSM allegedly doesn't discuss.

(08-26-2021 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.

Maybe not here, but any time the GOP makes gains, gerrymandering is listed as a reason by the MSM.

The gerrymandering by Illinois to eliminate a Republican (albeit a RINO) is just an example (not one the MSM will discuss)

Not one the MSM will discuss... Posts article from Politico about the gerrymandering of Kinzinger's district.

Sorry, I always chuckle at these instances. It's funny when someone uses an article/clip from the MSM that points out exactly what the MSM allegedly doesn't discuss.

I was thinking more of CNN/MSNBC.

435 has been the number since 1929, by law. That law needs to be repealed. There were just over 121 million people in the U.S. in 1929. We are now almost three times as large by population.

As an aside, anytime someone uses the term "MSM" or "mainstream media", I tune out whatever they say next. Stop watching that crap (CNN/Fox/MSNBC/whatever), it's poisonous.

(08-26-2021 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know when the HOR was frozen at 435, but I think if we still added seats, we would be well above 6-700 by now, and in any case, added seats still require redistricting. the physical facilities in DC are already strained by 435. That is why we froze the number in the first place.

Mathematical algorithms have been suggested for decades now, but nobody has yet come up with one that withstands scrutiny and inspires acceptance by both sides. But it is a fine goal, a modern El Dorado. who knows, maybe some math genius will come up with one.

Until then, this bad system is the best we have.

In any case, the point was not to defend gerrymandering, it was to point out it is not a partisan to one party practice.

This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.

Maybe not here, but any time the GOP makes gains, gerrymandering is listed as a reason by the MSM.

The gerrymandering by Illinois to eliminate a Republican (albeit a RINO) is just an example (not one the MSM will discuss)

Not one the MSM will discuss... Posts article from Politico about the gerrymandering of Kinzinger's district.

Sorry, I always chuckle at these instances. It's funny when someone uses an article/clip from the MSM that points out exactly what the MSM allegedly doesn't discuss.

I was thinking more of CNN/MSNBC.

agreed. While certainly many you wouldn't suspect read things like Politico, vast swaths of people still get their news from CNN/Fox/MSNBC/CBS etc.

I've literally seen articles written by places like Politico that reach one conclusion... that are then quoted and edited on one of the above to IMPLY but not directly say the exact opposite.

(08-26-2021 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is where the proportional representation model works well. One downside being that party mechanics start to play a serious role.

I don't think anyone here thinks gerrymandering is limited to a single party. I think the debate would be whether there is one party that engages in it more than the other.

Maybe not here, but any time the GOP makes gains, gerrymandering is listed as a reason by the MSM.

The gerrymandering by Illinois to eliminate a Republican (albeit a RINO) is just an example (not one the MSM will discuss)

Not one the MSM will discuss... Posts article from Politico about the gerrymandering of Kinzinger's district.

Sorry, I always chuckle at these instances. It's funny when someone uses an article/clip from the MSM that points out exactly what the MSM allegedly doesn't discuss.

I was thinking more of CNN/MSNBC.

agreed. While certainly many you wouldn't suspect read things like Politico, vast swaths of people still get their news from CNN/Fox/MSNBC/CBS etc.

I've literally seen articles written by places like Politico that reach one conclusion... that are then quoted and edited on one of the above to IMPLY but not directly say the exact opposite.

I never go to Politico. Anything of theirs I post I got off MSN. I had no idea that anybody considered them the MSM.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

However one of the problems with 'clean lines' is the issue of minority representation. The requirement by the courts for gerrymandering based on racial composition is a huge roadblock to that effort.

By the way, in the article that OO posted, I note after looking into them many of the *most* gerrymandered districts are efforts to ensure a minority representative.

Also, I had laugh at the list for another reason: half the list was bad for 'packing'; the other half was bad for 'cracking'. Those are opposite strategies in district drawing.

The article essentially says 'Bad for you state A for doing heads. Bad to you state B for doing tails.' Seems to be a no-win situation for that in that light.

For a great read on race-based gerrymandering -- read about the creation of Texas 29. It was drawn specifically and explicitly to elect a Latin.

Two fallouts from that.

First, the racial gerrymander to create the 29th led to secondary interlocking gerrymander terrible districts all about Houston.

Second, the ostensible 'Latin seat' was initially won by Gene Green -- a gabacho. Who proceeded to hold it for an ugodly number terms.

Long and short, I would join with the calls for 'natural lines' in *all* districts. But for many, the racial-reserved seats will (and do) take priority.

What are 'natural lines"? I can see an oceanside district stopping at the sea, and border district stopping at the state line. But what about the other boundaries, and overall size?

If we are to do this with algorithms, what will be the edge/distance/size parameters?

And of course, Tanq quite rightly brings up the gerrymanders for race.

If course, gerrymandering is bad. So propose something better, that is workable from Alaska to Maryland, that both parties will accept.

Of course, one problem is that states don't have nice orderly boundaries to start with, other than Wyoming and Colorado.

I think while we are dreaming up fair voting districts, we also need a plan for everybody to be happy and satisficed. Everybody has enough money but not too much, all the kids in the neighborhood are exactly the same, and nobody's car is bigger than anybody else's.

(08-26-2021 05:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

However one of the problems with 'clean lines' is the issue of minority representation. The requirement by the courts for gerrymandering based on racial composition is a huge roadblock to that effort.

By the way, in the article that OO posted, I note after looking into them many of the *most* gerrymandered districts are efforts to ensure a minority representative.

Also, I had laugh at the list for another reason: half the list was bad for 'packing'; the other half was bad for 'cracking'. Those are opposite strategies in district drawing.

The article essentially says 'Bad for you state A for doing heads. Bad to you state B for doing tails.' Seems to be a no-win situation for that in that light.

For a great read on race-based gerrymandering -- read about the creation of Texas 29. It was drawn specifically and explicitly to elect a Latin.

Two fallouts from that.

First, the racial gerrymander to create the 29th led to secondary interlocking gerrymander terrible districts all about Houston.

Second, the ostensible 'Latin seat' was initially won by Gene Green -- a gabacho. Who proceeded to hold it for an ugodly number terms.

Long and short, I would join with the calls for 'natural lines' in *all* districts. But for many, the racial-reserved seats will (and do) take priority.

I think there shouldn't be any consideration of demographics at all in setting the districts.

Draw up population-balanced areas that are approximately equal in size/numbers and run with it. Didn't all the set-asides we have now come because of partisan gerrymandering?

It's ridiculous to have districts that wrap around each other with little fingers and pockets.

ETA: To really throw a wrench in the works, remove state lines as boundaries. Often, people in close proximity across state lines have more needs in common than those in the same state.

(08-26-2021 06:44 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 05:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

However one of the problems with 'clean lines' is the issue of minority representation. The requirement by the courts for gerrymandering based on racial composition is a huge roadblock to that effort.

By the way, in the article that OO posted, I note after looking into them many of the *most* gerrymandered districts are efforts to ensure a minority representative.

Also, I had laugh at the list for another reason: half the list was bad for 'packing'; the other half was bad for 'cracking'. Those are opposite strategies in district drawing.

The article essentially says 'Bad for you state A for doing heads. Bad to you state B for doing tails.' Seems to be a no-win situation for that in that light.

For a great read on race-based gerrymandering -- read about the creation of Texas 29. It was drawn specifically and explicitly to elect a Latin.

Two fallouts from that.

First, the racial gerrymander to create the 29th led to secondary interlocking gerrymander terrible districts all about Houston.

Second, the ostensible 'Latin seat' was initially won by Gene Green -- a gabacho. Who proceeded to hold it for an ugodly number terms.

Long and short, I would join with the calls for 'natural lines' in *all* districts. But for many, the racial-reserved seats will (and do) take priority.

I think there shouldn't be any consideration of demographics at all in setting the districts.

Draw up population-balanced areas that are approximately equal in size/numbers and run with it. Didn't all the set-asides we have now come because of partisan gerrymandering?

It's ridiculous to have districts that wrap around each other with little fingers and pockets.

ETA: To really throw a wrench in the works, remove state lines as boundaries. Often, people in close proximity across state lines have more needs in common than those in the same state.

I'm too much of a fan of the concept of states as sovereigns and Federalism to consider the last point. The last point just kind of takes a big dump on that construct.

(08-26-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

Respectfully disagree with both of these.

The UK Parliament has 650 MPs to represent 68 million constituents.
Do I feel any better represented than a US citizen with 435 Representatives for 333 million? No. To make matters worse, the UK uses the "first past the post" voting system. So a plurality is defined as a majority.

UK 2019 General Election
Minority Winners: Overall 229 of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of their constituency’s vote. With five MP’s making it into Parliament with less than 36% of the votes cast.

Proportionality has often been advocated here in the UK and has often been shot down. With 650 seats to proportion on a national election, every 0.154% of the vote would translate into 1 MP. The argument presented uses a 5 member district. Who decided that? Moreover it suggests there are only three parties and almost invariably the party coming last would get 1 seat or 20% of the representation? In a 4 member district the losing party might get 25% of the representation?

If you want to fix Congress, I suggest you start with term limitations, clean up campaign financing (including unused funds claimed by politicians and transfers to related parties), and reduction in the Congressional benefits package (including, but not limited to pensions).

(08-27-2021 03:20 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

Respectfully disagree with both of these.

The UK Parliament has 650 MPs to represent 68 million constituents.
Do I feel any better represented than a US citizen with 435 Representatives for 333 million? No. To make matters worse, the UK uses the "first past the post" voting system. So a plurality is defined as a majority.

UK 2019 General Election
Minority Winners: Overall 229 of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of their constituency’s vote. With five MP’s making it into Parliament with less than 36% of the votes cast.

Proportionality has often been advocated here in the UK and has often been shot down. With 650 seats to proportion on a national election, every 0.154% of the vote would translate into 1 MP. The argument presented uses a 5 member district. Who decided that? Moreover it suggests there are only three parties and almost invariably the party coming last would get 1 seat or 20% of the representation? In a 4 member district the losing party might get 25% of the representation?

If you want to fix Congress, I suggest you start with term limitations, clean up campaign financing (including unused funds claimed by politicians and transfers to related parties), and reduction in the Congressional benefits package (including, but not limited to pensions).

The US uses a first past the post system too - it’s one of the reasons I think proportional voting could make sense. I’m not sure I follow why you think proportionality is problematic from your post above. Can you explain that abbot more? I see it as a way to allow minority parties/views to actually get representation since it scraps the first past the post election results.

Some states have started instituting ranked choice voting, which at least helps to manage some of the issues caused by the FPTP system.

(08-27-2021 03:20 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

Respectfully disagree with both of these.

The UK Parliament has 650 MPs to represent 68 million constituents.
Do I feel any better represented than a US citizen with 435 Representatives for 333 million? No. To make matters worse, the UK uses the "first past the post" voting system. So a plurality is defined as a majority.

UK 2019 General Election
Minority Winners: Overall 229 of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of their constituency’s vote. With five MP’s making it into Parliament with less than 36% of the votes cast.

Proportionality has often been advocated here in the UK and has often been shot down. With 650 seats to proportion on a national election, every 0.154% of the vote would translate into 1 MP. The argument presented uses a 5 member district. Who decided that? Moreover it suggests there are only three parties and almost invariably the party coming last would get 1 seat or 20% of the representation? In a 4 member district the losing party might get 25% of the representation?

If you want to fix Congress, I suggest you start with term limitations, clean up campaign financing (including unused funds claimed by politicians and transfers to related parties), and reduction in the Congressional benefits package (including, but not limited to pensions).

Since that latter requires a Congressional vote, don't hold your breath.

How are districts defined? Do any of them look gerrymandered? If so, by whom?

(08-27-2021 03:20 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

Respectfully disagree with both of these.

The UK Parliament has 650 MPs to represent 68 million constituents.
Do I feel any better represented than a US citizen with 435 Representatives for 333 million? No. To make matters worse, the UK uses the "first past the post" voting system. So a plurality is defined as a majority.

UK 2019 General Election
Minority Winners: Overall 229 of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of their constituency’s vote. With five MP’s making it into Parliament with less than 36% of the votes cast.

Proportionality has often been advocated here in the UK and has often been shot down. With 650 seats to proportion on a national election, every 0.154% of the vote would translate into 1 MP. The argument presented uses a 5 member district. Who decided that? Moreover it suggests there are only three parties and almost invariably the party coming last would get 1 seat or 20% of the representation? In a 4 member district the losing party might get 25% of the representation?

If you want to fix Congress, I suggest you start with term limitations, clean up campaign financing (including unused funds claimed by politicians and transfers to related parties), and reduction in the Congressional benefits package (including, but not limited to pensions).

Since that latter requires a Congressional vote, don't hold your breath.

How are districts defined? Do any of them look gerrymandered? If so, by whom?

(08-27-2021 08:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-27-2021 03:20 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the only real answer is some sort of proportional representation.

Say, 5 member districts. Each party puts up 5 candidates. You pool the votes for all 5 positions. If one party gets 51-70%, they get 3 seats. A third party that gets 11% or more gets 1 seat. Remaining seats go to the party that finished second.

You'd have to come up will allocation formulas where the number of seats was not divisible by 5. If 1 seat, obviously first past the post. If 2 seats, then if a party gets more than 75% of the vote they get both, otherwise top two parties each get 1. If 3 seats, party with most votes gets 2 and second-most 1. If 4 seats, party with most seats gets 3 if majority, 2 if plurality, third party with 13%+ of vote gets 1, and second party gets remainder. If 6 seats, do two 3-member districts. If 7 seats, do a 3-member and a 4-member district. If 8 seats, do two 4-member districts. If 9 seats, do one 4-member and one 5-member district. If 10 seats, two 5-member district. If 11 seats, two 4-member and one 3-member. If 12 seats, three 4-member. If 13 seats, two 4-member and one 5-member. If 15 seats, three 5-member. If 16 seats, four 4-member. If 17 seats, one 5-member and three 4-member. If 18 seats, two 5-member and two 4-member. If 19 seats, three 5-member and one 4-member. If 20 seats, four 5-member. And so forth.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider adding to the total number of seats in the HOR, to create more multiple-member districts, maybe somewhere between 500 and 600, but no more.

(08-26-2021 12:04 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I would agree that we likely need to increase the size of the House to properly serve our larger population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have 700 districts, give or take a few.

The Iowa process seems like a pretty fair one to me, as detailed here -- https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistrict...cting.aspx

Anything to take redistricting out of partisan hands would be a huge plus. Neither party can be trusted to be even remotely "fair" in their efforts, since the survival of their party may depend on how they split up the districts.

We have some incredibly smart people with great programming skills. I don't think it is terribly difficult to imagine a non-partisan process based simply on the math.

Agree with both of these

Respectfully disagree with both of these.

The UK Parliament has 650 MPs to represent 68 million constituents.
Do I feel any better represented than a US citizen with 435 Representatives for 333 million? No. To make matters worse, the UK uses the "first past the post" voting system. So a plurality is defined as a majority.

UK 2019 General Election
Minority Winners: Overall 229 of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of their constituency’s vote. With five MP’s making it into Parliament with less than 36% of the votes cast.

Proportionality has often been advocated here in the UK and has often been shot down. With 650 seats to proportion on a national election, every 0.154% of the vote would translate into 1 MP. The argument presented uses a 5 member district. Who decided that? Moreover it suggests there are only three parties and almost invariably the party coming last would get 1 seat or 20% of the representation? In a 4 member district the losing party might get 25% of the representation?

If you want to fix Congress, I suggest you start with term limitations, clean up campaign financing (including unused funds claimed by politicians and transfers to related parties), and reduction in the Congressional benefits package (including, but not limited to pensions).

Since that latter requires a Congressional vote, don't hold your breath.

How are districts defined? Do any of them look gerrymandered? If so, by whom?

Term limits requires further -- that would be a Constitutional issue. Not that I disagree with the solution, mind you.