If every state split EV's like Maine and Nebraska...

[nclib]

This poll is being asked given the existence of the electoral college.

I vote no for two reasons.

-gerrymandering
-population would be very uneven between CD's by the end of the decade

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No, it would create even more partisan gerrymandering, and it would be a huge gain for Republicans.  Why?  Because they would still get all the votes in overly-represented small states like Idaho and Wyoming, while the Democrats would have to split the EVs in California, NY, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.  Bush would have won by about an extra 20 EVs in 2000 if the votes were distributed this way.

[Blue Rectangle]

No, it would create even more partisan gerrymandering, and it would be a huge gain for Republicans.  Why?  Because they would still get all the votes in overly-represented small states like Idaho and Wyoming, while the Democrats would have to split the EVs in California, NY, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.  Bush would have won by about an extra 20 EVs in 2000 if the votes were distributed this way.

IIRC, Bush would have won in 2000 if EVs were district-by-district with no "bonus" EVs for senators.

Even without the "overly-represented" factor (no EVs for senators), Republicans still have an edge.

[A18]

Yes, definitely. But require districts to be drawn along county lines, of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, it would create even more partisan gerrymandering, and it would be a huge gain for Republicans.  Why?  Because they would still get all the votes in overly-represented small states like Idaho and Wyoming, while the Democrats would have to split the EVs in California, NY, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.  Bush would have won by about an extra 20 EVs in 2000 if the votes were distributed this way.

IIRC, Bush would have won in 2000 if EVs were district-by-district with no "bonus" EVs for senators.

Even without the "overly-represented" factor (no EVs for senators), Republicans still have an edge.

Yes, gerrymandering favors the Republican party in the US, just like it favors the Labour party in the UK.

[muon2]

It would be interesting to see how a CD-based system of EVs would change campaigns. Currently the presidential candidates identify the battleground states and devote the bulk of their time and money to them. They take advantage of the media markets in those states that can reach a large number of voters all within the swing state.

On paper a CD-based system might appear to have similarities. The great majority of districts are not close. There may only be 50 CD's that are really contestable. This is where the similarity with the current battleground state mentality ends.

Even though the there would be relatively few CDs that are in play, I think a larger number of people would need to be reached by the campaigns in a CD-based system. The ability to spend a lot of money in the Cleveland and Cincinnati metros while skipping Chicago won't work. It's likely that each metro region (well maybe not Boston) will have one or more competitive CDs. This forces campaigns to work in more parts of the country. Rural areas may also have competitive CDs and that can bring candidates out to an otherwise solid state.

That being said, the downside of the system is the result of gerrymandering. I agree with standards that minimize splitting counties and large county subdivisions. That won't stop gerrymandering but it greatly reduces the effect. Part of the public acceptance of the TX and GA plans has been to show how much more compact they are - despite favoring the other party.

If rules were in place to minimize gerrymandering, a CD-based system probably would make for more widely run campaigns. I think that would be a good thing for the public.

[Gabu]

No, unless redistricting was made into a completely scientific endeavor, unlike the partisan crap we've frequently seen (like GA-13).  In that case, I think that it could be an improvement, given that it would be more of a national race, instead of a "let's see how many times we can visit the same set of 'battleground states' over and over" campaign.

[A18]

No, unless resdistricting was made into a completely scientific endeavor, unlike the partisan crap we've frequently seen (like GA-13).

Nah, just have non-partisan commissions draw the districts, and put plenty of limitations on it, enforced by judicial review.

[Gabu]

No, unless resdistricting was made into a completely scientific endeavor, unlike the partisan crap we've frequently seen (like GA-13).

Nah, just have non-partisan commissions draw the districts, and put plenty of limitations on it, enforced by judicial review.

That's what I mean by "scientific" - make the districts actually have some sort of objective purpose that adheres to unchanging guidelines, instead of just being a way to get as many representatives from the same party as possible.

[A18]

It might be even better to just lock some random guy off the street in a room with nothing but population data, and force him to draw out some districts at random.

[Gabu]

It might be even better to just lock some random guy off the street in a room with nothing but population data, and force him to draw out some districts at random.

Well, it could work, really - as The Vorlon said, you don't have to be perfect, only to have uniform imperfections that don't favor either side.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

just like it favors the Labour party in the UK.

The U.K seat boundaries are not gerrymandered

[muon2]

No, it would create even more partisan gerrymandering, and it would be a huge gain for Republicans.  Why?  Because they would still get all the votes in overly-represented small states like Idaho and Wyoming, while the Democrats would have to split the EVs in California, NY, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.  Bush would have won by about an extra 20 EVs in 2000 if the votes were distributed this way.

IIRC, Bush would have won in 2000 if EVs were district-by-district with no "bonus" EVs for senators.

Even without the "overly-represented" factor (no EVs for senators), Republicans still have an edge.

Yes, gerrymandering favors the Republican party in the US, just like it favors the Labour party in the UK.

In IL gerrymandering is much more favorable to the Democrats, not the Republicans. Because there is such a high concentration of Democratic voting strength in Chicago, a map has be be made intentionally non-compact to use some of those voters to create Democrat-leaning districts into the suburbs.

Downstate, the problem for Democrats is the widely separated pockets of city voters in places like Peoria, Rockford, Rock Island, Decatur, Springfield, Bloomington, and Champaign. It takes a heavily gerrymandered district like IL-17 to combine enough of those pockets into a moderately safe seat. A non-partisan, compact district map is more likely to hurt the Democrats here.

[Emsworth]

just like it favors the Labour party in the UK.

The U.K seat boundaries are not gerrymandered

While that is certainly true, Scotland and Wales are both over-represented. This statement was even more valid prior to the recent reduction in the number of Scottish seats. This situation obviously harms the Tories.