Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2014, 12:27:46 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election  (Read 7391 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31174


View Profile
« on: February 26, 2007, 10:13:29 pm »
Ignore

Setting the number of House seats at 435 in 1941 stopped Al Gore from officially winning the 2000 Presidential election..

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Neubauer-Zeitlin.htm
Logged
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2007, 10:19:05 pm »
Ignore

Clearly FDR is a Bush enabler and a terrorist.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2007, 12:00:14 am »
Ignore

Interesting. I've always been a supporter of a larger House, but not for this reason. More seats means that each Representative becomes more responsible to his or her individual community and makes it easier to launch localized campaigns on low budgets.
Logged
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2007, 12:03:41 am »
Ignore

Seriously though, it makes perfect sense that this would be the case.  Every state will have two more electoral votes than it "should" were it the case that electoral votes are distributed purely by population.  That inherently biases the system in favor of the candidate who is able to appeal to a larger number of the fifty states.  As the number of electoral votes increases, the weight of these two extra electoral votes is diminished, and the fact of who won the most states becomes less and less of an issue, eclipsed by the fact of who won the most populous states.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2007, 02:39:33 am »
Ignore

And yet, we can't invent a time machine and Gore is not the President... so what is it worth pointing this out?
Logged

Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2007, 03:01:28 am »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8533
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2007, 07:07:04 pm »
Ignore

And yet, we can't invent a time machine and Gore is not the President... so what is it worth pointing this out?

As Gabu pointed out, this is just a thread calling out FDR for being a Bush supporter.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2007, 07:31:09 pm »
Ignore

And yet, we can't invent a time machine and Gore is not the President... so what is it worth pointing this out?

As Gabu pointed out, this is just a thread calling out FDR for being a Bush supporter.

Well... Pearl Harbor was planned by FDR... 9/11 by Bush... it only makes sense.  Hey, I wonder if would could search for some Lincoln/Kennedy like correlations between FDR and Bush
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2007, 08:54:39 pm »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4422
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2007, 04:21:57 am »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2007, 12:19:48 pm »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 12:28:02 pm by Verily »Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4422
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2007, 12:30:20 am »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

It would be nice to return to the days of 300,000 people/Representative.  If that were still the case today, every single state would likely have at least two representatives and 4 electoral votes.
Logged

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32028
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2007, 10:15:48 am »
Ignore


Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

Let's be honest.  Very few members of the Lords attend.  The quorum is 3.  The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

In principle, I agree with a fixed population representative system.  I note however that the PA State House has 203 members, and that has not improved representation.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8472


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2007, 04:26:34 pm »
Ignore


Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

Let's be honest.  Very few members of the Lords attend.  The quorum is 3.  The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

In principle, I agree with a fixed population representative system.  I note however that the PA State House has 203 members, and that has not improved representation.
Another option is to fix the ideal district population equal to the population of the smallest state. In 2000 this would be WY at 495K. It would have resulted in 569 seats in the house.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4422
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2007, 11:44:47 pm »
Ignore


Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

Let's be honest.  Very few members of the Lords attend.  The quorum is 3.  The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

In principle, I agree with a fixed population representative system.  I note however that the PA State House has 203 members, and that has not improved representation.
Another option is to fix the ideal district population equal to the population of the smallest state. In 2000 this would be WY at 495K. It would have resulted in 569 seats in the house.

I'd prefer it to be fixed to an actual number.  Perhaps somewhere between 300,000-600,000 people per district.  If you attach it to the population of the smallest state there is the chance (albeit slim) that the ideal district size could balloon up over 1 million or shrink down to only 100,000.
Logged

Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56231
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2007, 03:49:56 am »
Ignore

The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

That's more down to the size of the Chamber itself (it's tiny!) than the number of M.P's.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2007, 04:30:21 pm »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.
Your numbers are wrong. Tongue

(Was 659, will be 650. Is 646 is correct.)
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2007, 09:05:01 pm »
Ignore

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.
Your numbers are wrong. Tongue

(Was 659, will be 650. Is 646 is correct.)

I guess I should stop trying to do the addition in my head. I used to be good at math...

Although Wikipedia says that 17 constituencies are being abolished, and 25 are being created from scratch, so 654 should be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_change_recommendations_for_the_next_UK_general_election
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2007, 03:39:49 am »
Ignore

That list includes lots of constituencies that are simply majorly redrawn rather than new (the abolished list is also too long, but not by as much).
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8472


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2007, 04:20:12 am »
Ignore


Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

Let's be honest.  Very few members of the Lords attend.  The quorum is 3.  The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

In principle, I agree with a fixed population representative system.  I note however that the PA State House has 203 members, and that has not improved representation.
Another option is to fix the ideal district population equal to the population of the smallest state. In 2000 this would be WY at 495K. It would have resulted in 569 seats in the house.

I'd prefer it to be fixed to an actual number.  Perhaps somewhere between 300,000-600,000 people per district.  If you attach it to the population of the smallest state there is the chance (albeit slim) that the ideal district size could balloon up over 1 million or shrink down to only 100,000.

Historically the population of the smallest state changes slowly with time. Unless a new small state entered the union, or small states somehow merged, I see little chance of the extremes you note.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines