5 ms·

I know that is how things work, but isn't that the sign of a fundamentally broken process. Shouldn't each representative be required to vote in a way that is bl

I know that is how things work, but isn't that the sign of a fundamentally broken process. Shouldn't each representative be required to vote in a way that is blind to the success or failure of a piece of legislation. It seems like such a process would automatically bias votes against the will of the people and in favor of the lobbyists, since at the end of the day it is the lobbyists that are actually paying attention to your voting record on issues and are likely to withhold campaign donations during the next election.

marshray 13y ago
> Shouldn't each representative be required to vote in a way that is blind to the success or failure of a piece of legislation. I don't see how that would help unless they were somehow prevented from conspiring (i.e., discussing their votes ahead of time).
fsck--off 13y ago
Lobbyists aren't the only problem. The House majority has 33 more seats than the minority, despite losing the popular vote by over a million votes. To me, this is the epitome of how broken Washington is. Pennsylvania has 13 Republican representatives and 5 Democrat reps, even though Democrats won the popular vote, 50.28% to 48.77%.
- jcnnghm 13y ago
  What "popular vote" are you talking about. It's meaningless in this context given every congressional district is a separate race.
  - fsck--off 13y ago
    Congressional districts are supposed to allow equitable representation. The total popular vote is useful for determining whether the representation is fair. If districts are drawn correctly then the percentage of popular vote a political party wins should be should be close to percentage of representatives elected for that party. The closer the difference between the popular vote split and the representative split, the fairer the election. If the difference between the two tallies is off by more than 33%, then there is something fundamentally broken. It allows candidates to spew extremist views, because they won't be challenged in their home district.
- bobbydavid 13y ago
  I don't know the details but its not necessarily gerrymandering. if urban areas are 100% democrat while rural areas are 60% republican, you'd see this sort of elections naturally, without any foul play. that's just a natural outcomes of having districts.
  - marshray 13y ago
    So who decides the mix of urban-to-rural in each district?
diminoten 13y ago
It's not "indicative" of any real sinister work. It's a body of human beings, this is how bodies of human beings work. That's all.

marshray 13y ago

> Shouldn't each representative be required to vote in a way that is blind to the success or failure of a piece of legislation. I don't see how that would help unless they were somehow prevented from conspiring (i.e., discussing their votes ahead of time).

fsck--off 13y ago

Lobbyists aren't the only problem. The House majority has 33 more seats than the minority, despite losing the popular vote by over a million votes. To me, this is the epitome of how broken Washington is. Pennsylvania has 13 Republican representatives and 5 Democrat reps, even though Democrats won the popular vote, 50.28% to 48.77%.

jcnnghm 13y ago
What "popular vote" are you talking about. It's meaningless in this context given every congressional district is a separate race.
- fsck--off 13y ago
  Congressional districts are supposed to allow equitable representation. The total popular vote is useful for determining whether the representation is fair. If districts are drawn correctly then the percentage of popular vote a political party wins should be should be close to percentage of representatives elected for that party. The closer the difference between the popular vote split and the representative split, the fairer the election. If the difference between the two tallies is off by more than 33%, then there is something fundamentally broken. It allows candidates to spew extremist views, because they won't be challenged in their home district.
bobbydavid 13y ago
I don't know the details but its not necessarily gerrymandering. if urban areas are 100% democrat while rural areas are 60% republican, you'd see this sort of elections naturally, without any foul play. that's just a natural outcomes of having districts.
- marshray 13y ago
  So who decides the mix of urban-to-rural in each district?

diminoten 13y ago

It's not "indicative" of any real sinister work. It's a body of human beings, this is how bodies of human beings work. That's all.