Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 06:24:45 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  If all states were to use the ME/NE system, then Obama would have won, 301-237
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: If all states were to use the ME/NE system, then Obama would have won, 301-237  (Read 8014 times)
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38883
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 07:52:20 pm »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.

True, but it would be fairer so than otherwise.
Another possibility is to draw districts which are all 90-10 for one party or the other, but I guess it's quite difficult to do (plus, it destroys competitivity and therefore favors incumbents).

Or you could draw districts that make sense from a geographical perspective and ignore voting patterns.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31366
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2010, 04:21:24 am »
Ignore

Considering the number of States where districts are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, it's not surprising at all.

That really has little to do with it.

The fact is that Democrats are highly concentrated in few congressional districts around major cities, while most other districts are marginally or strongly Republican.

It means nothing. If congressional districts were drawn fairly, so that the most possible of them are close to the Statewide margin, there would be no problem with democratic underrepresentation. But indeed if the democratic vote is concentred in a few stronghold urban districts, such thing happens. It's all about how you draw districts.

Having districts with an unusual proportion of Democrats would occur even if the lines were drawn fairly. For example, CO-1 makes perfect sense, no matter what else you do in the state, but clearly has a vast number of Democrats.

Depends how you define "fairly drawn districts". The aesthetic aspect of a district isn't a criterion of fairness for me. The only valuable criterion is its competitivity in a situation of overall tie.

For example, in a situation of 50-50 statewide, if a district goes to democrats 60-40, no matter how it looks, then it is gerrymandered. And such gerrymander favors republicans.

Incorrect. If every district was 50-50, and the election result was 55-45, then every seat would go to the winning party.

True, but it would be fairer so than otherwise.
Another possibility is to draw districts which are all 90-10 for one party or the other, but I guess it's quite difficult to do (plus, it destroys competitivity and therefore favors incumbents).

Or you could draw districts that make sense from a geographical perspective and ignore voting patterns.

Such drawing would be unfair, because it necessarily distorts the PV results to the number of districts won.
Logged

HashCAN     americans saw the EP elections and people cringing at Europeans being morons and electing Nazis; so they massively said "NO" and decided to prove that they're still bigger morons



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5917
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2010, 04:22:12 pm »
Ignore

The problem with this ME/NE system is gerrymandering.

I agree, but this could be remedied. Congress mandated single-member districts in 1967. The original bill introduced then would have provided for non-gerrymandered redistricting as well. If Congress could pass that law today, the ME/NE system would be more attractive.
Following the 1800 election, the Vermont legislature proposed to Congress that a constitutional amendment be proposed that would have electors popularly elected by electoral district, and that the districts have equal population and not be changed between censuses.

The ME/NE system of having a mix of district and at large electors is somewhat of an anomaly.  The more common system was electing all electors from districts.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines