5 ms·

The solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need district

The solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need districts of about 25,000 voters). The crazy thing is it doesn't even cost anymore money because as you increase the politicians you take away their staff. If you want to know more about this idea see [1]. 1. http://www.thirty-thousand.org http://www.thirty-thousand.org

mtgx 11y ago
Even better, do multi-winner districts (3-9 per district) with a ranked choice voting system that would greatly increase how well people are represented in Congress through proportional representation. http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The problem with having large electorates is you still need a lot of money for advertising. By making the electorates small you basically can campaign by visiting and speaking to every person in the electorate. Get rid of the need for expensive advertising and you get rid of the need to raise money. I do agree that there are much better voting systems then simple majorities - I like instant runoffs.
newjersey 11y ago
Smaller congressional districts could also help decrease the effect of gerrymandering. This is interesting. On the other hand, will we make ourselves even more vulnerable to "grassroots campaigns" like the tea party and lobbies like Alec? I'm not an expert but there are mathematically and sociologically sound alternatives that are better than what you and I can prescribe. I'd prefer one of those.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would be a small minority without much power at the congress level.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I like the idea. My fear is that a lot of the legislation may not directly affect people in my district but I'm supposed to vote on them as well. Also I'm not very familiar with the work of committees. Would they grow larger? Would they become even more powerful and stay the same size?
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      If you were the representative of a small district you would face exactly the same problem as with big districts. You would still face the interest trading that all politicians face. I would imagine that committees would get bigger. Hopefully with more politicians you would get more people who actually knew about the area that they were on a committee for. The main thing is once you got rid of the need for money the desire to be on a powerful committee would decrease.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I still find the nonmonotonicity of instant runoffs problematic. Something seems wrong about a system where you can lose by gaining votes. I'd expect instability to be higher than a similar system that is monotonic.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      You never lose by getting more votes - the nice thing about instant run offs is it simple (just rank) and it is close to the ideal outcome. It is not perfect, but it is not too bad. In regards stability it is better than proportional voting which tends to splinter the electorate. With instant run offs the candidate that is close to the consensus tends to win.
- Grooted 11y ago
  so representative, just not of opinions you differ with ?
- jameshart 11y ago
  Not sure why smaller districts prevent gerrymandering. Small districts can be more easily targeted to homogenous communities - you could create a few almost 100% democrat districts in the center of a city, then surround that with 60% republican 40% democrat mixes of city suburb and exurb to turn a popular democrat majority into an entrenched republican majority (inverse gerrymanders are of course also possible). And you could do that without having to create long thin districts that wrap round cities if the districts were smaller making it harder to object to the gerrymander on the grounds that a district is not compact. In fact any proposal which claims that making districts more homogenous in their voting behavior - "80% of people in this town vote republican so why don't we just make a district that reflects that commonality," for example - is effectively gerrymandering and disenfranchisement harming both sides. 20% of the population of that town will always be ignored. 30% of that town are casting republican votes that don't matter at a larger level, and which don't contribute to countering a democrat vote. Seems to me smaller districts would be more likely to exhibit those alignments and disenfranchise more people?
entee 11y ago
I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely. On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?
- throweway 11y ago
  How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia
  - DanBC 11y ago
    In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.
    - specialist 11y ago
      Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.
  - e12e 11y ago
    Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15
gnopgnip 11y ago
What would the financial impact of having 20x as many representatives be after benefits and pensions and reducing staff?
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Probably very little directly, but getting rid of the cause of all the corruption then an immense impact.
barrkel 11y ago
Ireland works this way; there are about 25k voters per representative. What happens is clientilism: representatives become very concerned with local issues and neglect national issues. Corruption of a different, more local kind, is encouraged.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Irish political corruption is a different kind of corruption. I don't think it is due to the size of the electorate, but more a reflection of history. Whatever the cause it is not due to the need for the representatives to raise truckloads of cash to buy advertising to get elected.
- specialist 11y ago
  Corruption of a different, more local kind, is encouraged. I'd love some of that where I live. I now fully embrace transactional politics. Quid pro quo.
- tacone 11y ago
  That's how democracy is meant to work.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    I disagree. I think that exactly the opposite of how democracy is supposed to work. In the US, anyway.
    - riprowan 11y ago
      Obviously, since the US is not a democracy, but a representative republic.
      - brownbat 11y ago
        democracy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\ a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting - Merriam Webster, first definition democracy (dĭ-mŏkˈrə-sē) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives - American Heritage dictionary, first definition With apologies to Plato, the word "democracy" most commonly refers to nearly any political system that involves voting. The only time anyone uses the word democracy to mean "direct democracy," with every citizen voting on every issue, is when they're criticizing someone else for using the word democracy in exactly the way almost everyone does all the time. See my companion rant: Hitler's National Socialism was a form of fascism in the way we use that word today, even though he and Mussolini had distinct political ideas.
Overtonwindow 11y ago
I disagree, the chances of one member of Congress pushing through legislation or raising an issue a Knouff for a constituent, is so overwhelmingly difficult, that it's pointless. And lobbyist gathers multiple members of Congress, educating and building a coalition, because that client elected official has to balance the request with all the other constituent request. It's simply not possible.
specialist 11y ago
increase the politicians you take away their staff Respectfully disagree. It's not that easy. Legislating is an information processing problem. The politics of attention. All the legislators I know can barely keep up with the torrent of information. Overwhelming them with info and votes and meetings prevents them from taking initiative. They need more staff. All games have winners and losers. Weakening legislators -- thru term limits, cutting staff, whatever -- strengthens lobbyists and administrators (heads of departments, the silent state) and executives. My baptism to the policy world flipped most of my positions. Some measures that would strengthen legislators, give them more autonomy, would be public financing of campaigns (no more dialing for dollars), public disclosure commissions, pay raises and full time employment (so regular people, not just lawyers and retirees, could serve), full staffs, recording every vote (disallowing roll call voice votes), lengthen the legislative calendar, diffuse power thru more fair committee assignments (not just seniority), etc, etc. There's no shortage of worthy reform proposals. Just mind the winners and losers with every rule change.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The problems you describe are the complexities resulting from overworked representatives and complex societies. The proposal to increase the number of representatives does not directly change this (it should help by having a wider pool of individuals to draw on when composing committees), but about getting the need for money out of the system. This is the core cause of corruption.

mtgx 11y ago

Even better, do multi-winner districts (3-9 per district) with a ranked choice voting system that would greatly increase how well people are represented in Congress through proportional representation. http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation

danieltillett 11y ago
The problem with having large electorates is you still need a lot of money for advertising. By making the electorates small you basically can campaign by visiting and speaking to every person in the electorate. Get rid of the need for expensive advertising and you get rid of the need to raise money. I do agree that there are much better voting systems then simple majorities - I like instant runoffs.

newjersey 11y ago

Smaller congressional districts could also help decrease the effect of gerrymandering. This is interesting. On the other hand, will we make ourselves even more vulnerable to "grassroots campaigns" like the tea party and lobbies like Alec? I'm not an expert but there are mathematically and sociologically sound alternatives that are better than what you and I can prescribe. I'd prefer one of those.

danieltillett 11y ago
There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would be a small minority without much power at the congress level.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I like the idea. My fear is that a lot of the legislation may not directly affect people in my district but I'm supposed to vote on them as well. Also I'm not very familiar with the work of committees. Would they grow larger? Would they become even more powerful and stay the same size?
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    If you were the representative of a small district you would face exactly the same problem as with big districts. You would still face the interest trading that all politicians face. I would imagine that committees would get bigger. Hopefully with more politicians you would get more people who actually knew about the area that they were on a committee for. The main thing is once you got rid of the need for money the desire to be on a powerful committee would decrease.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I still find the nonmonotonicity of instant runoffs problematic. Something seems wrong about a system where you can lose by gaining votes. I'd expect instability to be higher than a similar system that is monotonic.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    You never lose by getting more votes - the nice thing about instant run offs is it simple (just rank) and it is close to the ideal outcome. It is not perfect, but it is not too bad. In regards stability it is better than proportional voting which tends to splinter the electorate. With instant run offs the candidate that is close to the consensus tends to win.
Grooted 11y ago
so representative, just not of opinions you differ with ?
jameshart 11y ago
Not sure why smaller districts prevent gerrymandering. Small districts can be more easily targeted to homogenous communities - you could create a few almost 100% democrat districts in the center of a city, then surround that with 60% republican 40% democrat mixes of city suburb and exurb to turn a popular democrat majority into an entrenched republican majority (inverse gerrymanders are of course also possible). And you could do that without having to create long thin districts that wrap round cities if the districts were smaller making it harder to object to the gerrymander on the grounds that a district is not compact. In fact any proposal which claims that making districts more homogenous in their voting behavior - "80% of people in this town vote republican so why don't we just make a district that reflects that commonality," for example - is effectively gerrymandering and disenfranchisement harming both sides. 20% of the population of that town will always be ignored. 30% of that town are casting republican votes that don't matter at a larger level, and which don't contribute to countering a democrat vote. Seems to me smaller districts would be more likely to exhibit those alignments and disenfranchise more people?

entee 11y ago

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely. On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?

throweway 11y ago
How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia
- DanBC 11y ago
  In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.
  - specialist 11y ago
    Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.
- e12e 11y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15

gnopgnip 11y ago

What would the financial impact of having 20x as many representatives be after benefits and pensions and reducing staff?

danieltillett 11y ago
Probably very little directly, but getting rid of the cause of all the corruption then an immense impact.

barrkel 11y ago

Ireland works this way; there are about 25k voters per representative. What happens is clientilism: representatives become very concerned with local issues and neglect national issues. Corruption of a different, more local kind, is encouraged.

danieltillett 11y ago
Irish political corruption is a different kind of corruption. I don't think it is due to the size of the electorate, but more a reflection of history. Whatever the cause it is not due to the need for the representatives to raise truckloads of cash to buy advertising to get elected.
specialist 11y ago
Corruption of a different, more local kind, is encouraged. I'd love some of that where I live. I now fully embrace transactional politics. Quid pro quo.
tacone 11y ago
That's how democracy is meant to work.
- gozur88 11y ago
  I disagree. I think that exactly the opposite of how democracy is supposed to work. In the US, anyway.
  - riprowan 11y ago
    Obviously, since the US is not a democracy, but a representative republic.
    - brownbat 11y ago
      democracy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\ a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting - Merriam Webster, first definition democracy (dĭ-mŏkˈrə-sē) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives - American Heritage dictionary, first definition With apologies to Plato, the word "democracy" most commonly refers to nearly any political system that involves voting. The only time anyone uses the word democracy to mean "direct democracy," with every citizen voting on every issue, is when they're criticizing someone else for using the word democracy in exactly the way almost everyone does all the time. See my companion rant: Hitler's National Socialism was a form of fascism in the way we use that word today, even though he and Mussolini had distinct political ideas.

Overtonwindow 11y ago

I disagree, the chances of one member of Congress pushing through legislation or raising an issue a Knouff for a constituent, is so overwhelmingly difficult, that it's pointless. And lobbyist gathers multiple members of Congress, educating and building a coalition, because that client elected official has to balance the request with all the other constituent request. It's simply not possible.

specialist 11y ago

increase the politicians you take away their staff Respectfully disagree. It's not that easy. Legislating is an information processing problem. The politics of attention. All the legislators I know can barely keep up with the torrent of information. Overwhelming them with info and votes and meetings prevents them from taking initiative. They need more staff. All games have winners and losers. Weakening legislators -- thru term limits, cutting staff, whatever -- strengthens lobbyists and administrators (heads of departments, the silent state) and executives. My baptism to the policy world flipped most of my positions. Some measures that would strengthen legislators, give them more autonomy, would be public financing of campaigns (no more dialing for dollars), public disclosure commissions, pay raises and full time employment (so regular people, not just lawyers and retirees, could serve), full staffs, recording every vote (disallowing roll call voice votes), lengthen the legislative calendar, diffuse power thru more fair committee assignments (not just seniority), etc, etc. There's no shortage of worthy reform proposals. Just mind the winners and losers with every rule change.

danieltillett 11y ago
The problems you describe are the complexities resulting from overworked representatives and complex societies. The proposal to increase the number of representatives does not directly change this (it should help by having a wider pool of individuals to draw on when composing committees), but about getting the need for money out of the system. This is the core cause of corruption.