5 ms·

A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exp

by mtgx 9y ago

A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exploiting the gerrymandering system wouldn't help much), along with having many other benefits for democracy: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation > They complied with the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement That line is interesting. How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state? Or is it enough that it satisfies the requirement technically (still "one vote"), even if not in spirit/based on a (I would think) more common interpretation of the Constitution?

infosample 9y ago
Look at the history of compromise that lead to the Electoral College - Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South: There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat...
tzs 9y ago
It's a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of voting systems reminds me of another modification to voting that I sometimes think might be reasonable: weighting votes based on voter age, with the weight starting off low for the youngest voters and increasing to a peak, and then dropping off again. What brought this on was thinking about the brexit vote over in the UK, which from what I read had very different outcomes among different age groups. It seems quite unfair that people who are likely to die before brexit is complete should have the same say as people who will be living decades under the outcome.
- autokad 9y ago
  i dont think its a good idea to discriminate a voter on any metric: age, income, race, education, or status of health among them. I am really surprised that anyone would even suggest it
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    Voting is already discriminatory based on age. We don't let 5 year olds vote, drive, or drink; why shouldn't we impose the same restrictions on say, a senile 95 year old with the mental age of 5 year old? I know why, implementing those restrictions would be far more difficult, but still, it's incorrect to say you should never discriminate based on age. Ironically, I actually know a radical anti-ageism activist who thinks 5 year olds (and 0 year olds for that matter) should have all the same legal rights as adults.
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      > Why shouldn't we impose the same restrictions on say, a senile 95 year old with the mental age of 5 year old? In that case, you aren't discriminating based on age. Unless you think for some reason that a 95 year old with the mental capacity of a 5 year old doesn't deserve a vote, but a 40 year old with the mental capacity of a 5 year old does deserve a vote.
      - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
        Good point, in the case of voting it's a matter of mental age/capacity, not physical age. But I think there are analogous situations where it makes sense to age discriminate on both end for primarily physical reasons - contact sports, voluntary exposure to high g-forces, etc.
    - function_seven 9y ago
      > Ironically, I actually know a radical anti-ageism activist who thinks 5 year olds (and 0 year olds for that matter) should have all the same legal rights as adults. I'd be really curious to know that activist's views on labor, aviation, combat, pornography, driving, and marriage--as they relate to a 5-year-old. I suppose some of those categories can be answered with skill testing or whatnot, but others clearly cannot.
comex 9y ago
To answer your question more directly: the electoral college system isn’t in conflict with the Constitution because it’s in the Constitution (article II section 1).
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state? The electoral college system gives equal weight to the vote of everyone who isn't an elector, and that weight is 0. It gives stronger votes to large states than to small states, except that states are allowed to split their votes, which obviates that complaint.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The electoral college is in conflict with the one person/one vote requirement, but it is also part of the Constitution so it is still legal.

by mtgx 9y ago

infosample 9y ago

Look at the history of compromise that lead to the Electoral College - Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South: There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat...

tzs 9y ago

It's a bit of a tangent, but the discussion of voting systems reminds me of another modification to voting that I sometimes think might be reasonable: weighting votes based on voter age, with the weight starting off low for the youngest voters and increasing to a peak, and then dropping off again. What brought this on was thinking about the brexit vote over in the UK, which from what I read had very different outcomes among different age groups. It seems quite unfair that people who are likely to die before brexit is complete should have the same say as people who will be living decades under the outcome.

autokad 9y ago
i dont think its a good idea to discriminate a voter on any metric: age, income, race, education, or status of health among them. I am really surprised that anyone would even suggest it
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  Voting is already discriminatory based on age. We don't let 5 year olds vote, drive, or drink; why shouldn't we impose the same restrictions on say, a senile 95 year old with the mental age of 5 year old? I know why, implementing those restrictions would be far more difficult, but still, it's incorrect to say you should never discriminate based on age. Ironically, I actually know a radical anti-ageism activist who thinks 5 year olds (and 0 year olds for that matter) should have all the same legal rights as adults.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    > Why shouldn't we impose the same restrictions on say, a senile 95 year old with the mental age of 5 year old? In that case, you aren't discriminating based on age. Unless you think for some reason that a 95 year old with the mental capacity of a 5 year old doesn't deserve a vote, but a 40 year old with the mental capacity of a 5 year old does deserve a vote.
    - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
      Good point, in the case of voting it's a matter of mental age/capacity, not physical age. But I think there are analogous situations where it makes sense to age discriminate on both end for primarily physical reasons - contact sports, voluntary exposure to high g-forces, etc.
  - function_seven 9y ago
    > Ironically, I actually know a radical anti-ageism activist who thinks 5 year olds (and 0 year olds for that matter) should have all the same legal rights as adults. I'd be really curious to know that activist's views on labor, aviation, combat, pornography, driving, and marriage--as they relate to a 5-year-old. I suppose some of those categories can be answered with skill testing or whatnot, but others clearly cannot.

comex 9y ago

To answer your question more directly: the electoral college system isn’t in conflict with the Constitution because it’s in the Constitution (article II section 1).

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state? The electoral college system gives equal weight to the vote of everyone who isn't an elector, and that weight is 0. It gives stronger votes to large states than to small states, except that states are allowed to split their votes, which obviates that complaint.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

The electoral college is in conflict with the one person/one vote requirement, but it is also part of the Constitution so it is still legal.