> Frank Schmidt wrote: > >> Even better! > >> A post I wrote last October: > >> > >> The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral > >> college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I > >> would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis > >> would be of much greater concern. > >> > >> Just to make sure my message is clear: *The Problem Is A Lack Of > >> Fair Representation* > >> > >> Using Wyoming as a benchmark, where you have 1 congressperson per > >> (roughly) 500,000 people, 2 Senators (as always) and 3 Electoral > >> votes. > >> > >> Compare to California where you have 1 Congressperson per 639,088 > >> people, 2 Senators, and 55 Electoral votes. > >> That doesn't sound all that bad offhand, but if California had > >> representation equal to Wyomings you would get 67 Congresspersons > >> and 69 Electoral votes. That is a net gain of 12 Congresspersons > >> and 14 Electoral votes. > >> > >> This lack of representation effects at least 48 states that I can > >> identify. Of those states, 25 are short one representative, and 10 > >> are shorted by 2. Only Iowa and DC are represented in the same > >> proportion as Wyoming and the rest are shorted between 3 and 14 > >> representatives. > >> > >> Law limits Congress to 435 Representatives, but if representation > >> were proportional there would be 549, an increase of 114 > >> representatives. I do not see why this number should be unwieldy or > >> why it would cause difficulty. > >> > >> xponent > >> Census Data Maru > >> rob > > > > The difficulty is, when you have done the above and look at the new > > data, you'll find another state which is better represented than any > > other. I think the current system is so designed that it minimizes > > the difference between the actual number of Representatives (in > > Wyoming 1) and the deserved number (in Wyoming about 0.8), so your > > proposed change would probably make the situation much less > > desireable by your standards. > > > > I find the difference between the voters for district winners and > > the voters for other candidates more of a problem. The first group > > has 435 Representatives, the other has none. The real problem is > > that the most voters will either always be in the first group, or > > always be in the second group; relatively few change between the > > groups. Many in the losing group have already given up voting > > because of that. > > I think you miss the point by some margin here. Regardless of what > party a Representative belongs to, that Rep is still responsible to > everyone in his district in the sense that the Rep is the person one > goes to with a grievence or a plan. I would have no problem asking Tom > Delay (Ugh.....my congressman....and one I would never under any > circumstances vote for) for help with some matter, because that is > part of his job. I don't have to like my Rep in order to apply for his > services.
*attempting to process* I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for his district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the voters might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his solid majority. Is that what you mean? > The other issue is representation. My state is unfairly represented > when compared to Wyoming or Alaska. And that unfairness spreads even > to representation by electors in presidential elections. Who is > elected is irrelevent. What is relevent is that my vote is worth less > in every way measurable than a voter in Wyoming. That is unfair and > should be redressed. OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 Representatives, and equal or better representation than Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation than Texas. > I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case. > > xponent > No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru > rob So what do you think now? -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
