Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Would never work. A House election depends on the individual choices of districts. Making it a national percentage thing would not only make the entire affair incredibly complicated, but would also massively decrease the representation State's receive in government affairs.
The Nation elects the President
The States elect their Senators
The Districts elect their Representatives
edited 11th Nov '12 5:48:19 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016That would kinda defeat the entire purpose of the Senate.
Representatives are meant to represent there districts, Senators are meant to represent there states.
> Implying that Gerrymandering isn't a bi-partisan event.
edited 11th Nov '12 6:05:51 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Well clearly the Democrats need to get better at it, its not the Republicans fault the Dems suck at rigging the system (I mean look at the job they did in Wisconsin)
.
edited 11th Nov '12 6:14:17 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Kostya was only referring to the House seats. A change to the House need not effect the Senate, where all states get two regardless to help even things out. I don't think we need to change that particular fact. (Except to maybe increase the number of Senate seats, but they'd all stay equal anyway.)
And as I said, there's a way to work it; each state gets its proportion of the population seats, but those seats are divvied up by percentages of the party instead of the population within the states.
You don't get it.
We would have Senators representing their State.
And the House Representatives representing their State.
We don't need two groups representing their State
edited 11th Nov '12 6:23:01 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016We already have two groups representing their states. And you know why? To Compromise between the need for representation and the fear that more heavily populated areas would outweigh the less populated areas.
You're sounding kind of dumb here, because very few people will want to change that. It's part of our system of checks and balances.
![]()
![]()
Your proposed plan would give populated areas more power than less populated areas.
Cities would get far more representation than Suburbs and Rural areas.
And as this very thread has demonstrated, Urban and Rural people don't fully understand each other's concerns.
edited 11th Nov '12 6:38:56 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I don't think you're understanding Kostya's proposal here. "percentage of the vote" doesn't have anything to do with where that vote happens to live. It takes the whole number (of that particular state as I refined it) and apportions the seats to the parties depending on how many people voted for a particular party. Thus, which House seats go where depends on that. As I imagine it, the way seats are apportioned to the states would remain the same. It's how the states then gives out its available seats that would change.
Kostya said jack shit about the Senate, so the Senate would remain unchanged. This keeps in place the check and balance of ensuring representation regardless of how populous a state is.
![]()
Kostya's suggestion also requires a change to how part of the electoral process works. *shrug*
It would come up about even in Texas, provided you got the people out to vote.
This is similar to how I've heard elections run in places like Finland and such, for example. It
edited 11th Nov '12 6:44:39 PM by AceofSpades

The popular Vote means nothing. Especially in the House Election.
BTW Six House races are still on going.
I miss the days when politicians in CA would gerrymander to there heart's content.
EDIT: Here's a spot of news we over looked.
Apparently on November 6, Local volunteers with the tea party-linked organization True the Vote were rejected as poll watchers by Franklin county officials in Ohio amid questions about how the volunteers applied to monitor the polls.
Ohio law permits groups of at least five candidates to assign poll observers, but candidates backing the group withdrew their support when charges surfaced Monday that candidate names had been falsified or copied on forms requesting observer status, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
edited 11th Nov '12 5:32:11 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016