Election Prediction Thread

[One Brow]

The house is representational to the state's populations as of a century ago,

It changes with the census, every 10 years.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It's not irrelevant when discussing the political divide in this country, which is what Thriller was talking about. Obviously the Senate isn't representational, but I would argue that's a big part of why it is so dysfunctional.

I detailed it earlier, but even those numbers he used are misrepresentative because the California race was between two democrats so all of the votes in one of the most populous states went to Democrats. I mean...they absolutely should have more total votes in that case. And at the time of that tweet, the Democrats were winning 23/35 senate races.

It was overall a stupid, and irrelevant point to make.

 

[Stoked]

The house is representational to the state's populations as of a century ago, I'm not saying it needs to change every election cycle, but it does need to be updated. It doesn't make sense to have both chambers of congress set up to favor states with small populations. It's not like 435 is set in stone or anything.

The House make up is altered every census. Last time it changed was in 2010. 8 states gained seats and 10 lost them. The only limitation is it’s capped at 435. So it seems, unless I’m misunderstanding, that you just want to raise the 435 cap. While I’m no opposed to it I don’t see a real reason as it’s already proportional and the mechanism for altering it already exists and is used every census.

Also nice choice of words to end with. “Set in stone”. Because coincidentally it is capped as the result of The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/

 

[Zombie]

Filibusters are still a thing. You can't pass major changes without 60 votes in the Senate, which is why, among other things, there has been no extension of the southern border wall and the ACA is still the law of the land.

You are correct, I should have been more specific, the filibuster has been killed with regard to presidential appointees.

 

[Stoked]

You are correct, I should have been more specific, the filibuster has been killed with regard to presidential nominees.

And again. That’s is the result of the Rs and Ds. Not the Senate being 2 per state.

 

[Zombie]

The House make up is altered every census. Last time it changed was in 2010. 8 states gained seats and 10 lost them. The only limitation is it’s capped at 435. So it seems, unless I’m misunderstanding, that you just want to raise the 435 cap. While I’m no opposed to it I don’t see a real reason as it’s already proportional and the mechanism for altering it already exists and is used every census.

Also nice choice of words to end with. “Set in stone”. Because coincidentally it is capped as the result of The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/

Right, I am suggesting a new law be passed to raise that number to allow for more accurate representation. Right now as a Wyomingite my Representative in the house represents 500,000 people. More populous states like Texas or California have reps that represent around 750,000 people. That bakes in more representative power to small states which already have an advantage in the Senate.

And again. That’s is the result of the Rs and Ds. Not the Senate being 2 per state.

OK? Not sure what your point is here.

 

[Zombie]

I detailed it earlier, but even those numbers he used are misrepresentative because the California race was between two democrats so all of the votes in one of the most populous states went to Democrats. I mean...they absolutely should have more total votes in that case. And at the time of that tweet, the Democrats were winning 23/35 senate races.

It was overall a stupid, and irrelevant point to make.

Oh I see what you are saying. Yeah I agree that tweet was a poor one to make that point with.

 

[Stoked]

Right, I am suggesting a new law be passed to raise that number to allow for more accurate representation. Right now as a Wyomingite my Representative in the house represents 500,000 people. More populous states like Texas or California have reps that represent around 750,000 people. That bakes in more representative power to small states which already have an advantage in the Senate.

OK? Not sure what your point is here.

That the organization of the Senate is fine. It’s the parties. Not the organization. Same point for a few pages now.

Back to the House.

If we go by 500k per state that’s over 650 seats right now. That’s a massive increase. Wonder what it would look like... Utah would go form 4 to 6 to start with.

But that’s only a “short term” solution. As the population will keep growing. Would we keep adding every census? That’s over 50 more a decade right now. For example 1990 there were 258.7 million and in 2000 there were 291.4. That’s an increase of 33 milion. That’s 66 new house seats ...

I just don’t see that as the solution. Maybe taking the total US population every 50 years and dividing by 435 and then dolling that out by state would be a better solution.

 

[Zombie]

That the organization of the Senate is fine. It’s the parties. Not the organization. Same point for a few pages now.

Back to the House.

If we go by 500k per state that’s over 650 seats right now. That’s a massive increase. Wonder what it would look like... Utah would go form 4 to 6 to start with.

But that’s only a “short term” solution. As the population will keep growing. Would we keep adding every census? That’s over 50 more a decade right now. For example 1990 there were 258.7 million and in 2000 there were 291.4. That’s an increase of 33 milion. That’s 66 new house seats ...

I just don’t see that as the solution. Maybe taking the total US population every 50 years and dividing by 435 and then dolling that out by state out be a better solution

OK, I guess I'm a little confused here because I haven't been arguing that the organization of the Senate needs to change.

500k per rep seems fine to me for the time being. I think it makes sense to have one rep for the least populous state and then use that states population as the benchmark. I get that would be a huge increase, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It would mean better representation per citizen, tying our federal representatives more closely to their communities.

 

[Zombie]

This is nice little infographic which shows how our House of Representatives compares with other countries legislative bodies wrt people per reprentative. We often wonder why our government doesn't represent our needs very well, I think expanding the house could alleviate that somewhat. I pulled that from this article:https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/17417452/congress-representation-ratio-district-size-chart-graph

It's a pretty interesting read. Especially this bit:

As a historical side note, the US almost adopted a constitutional provision that, today, would likely require Congress to have 6,489 members. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment was one of the 12 amendments first proposed and passed by Congress in 1789. Ten of those amendments were ratified quickly by the states and became known as the Bill of Rights. The 11th, which delays all congressional pay increases from taking effect until the next term of office, was sent to the states in 1789 but finally ratified in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendment, after lobbying from a UT Austin student named Gregory Watson.

The 12th, the Apportionment Amendment, has languished unratified by the states, apparently by accident. In just the past decade, archival research has suggested that Connecticut ratified the amendment in 1790 without Congress noticing, meaning it should have taken effect upon Vermont’s ratification in 1791. But the Supreme Court in 2012 rejected an appeal to get the amendment recognized, and so, despite apparently going through all the steps to become part of the Constitution in 1791, it remains unratified.

 

[Gameface]

I'm kind of on board with the idea of a "single transferable vote" where we vote with a preference 1-whatever and if our #1 vote getter is eliminated our vote goes to the next on our list. I could care less about our 2 party system, because a different way of voting would nullify that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

 

[One Brow]

Right, I am suggesting a new law be passed to raise that number to allow for more accurate representation. Right now as a Wyomingite my Representative in the house represents 500,000 people. More populous states like Texas or California have reps that represent around 750,000 people. That bakes in more representative power to small states which already have an advantage in the Senate.

By contrast, Montana has the most populous Congressional district at close to 995,000, diluting their popular vote.

Any number you pick for the House of Representatives will see districts of unfair sizes (large or small) show up in less populous states.