Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[San Lumen]

I think if one or two states could do it for their own legislatures, that would satisfy the "it would never work in America" people and it could be proposed nationally.

It would probably need to be implemented in a majority of states though. After all the states are going to have to consent to a national system, they'll likely only do that if it's already a thing in their state.

I find it very odd that it isn't a thing already. It's actually far more conducive in preventing the "tyranny of the majority" the "republic, not democracy" folks have their heads wrapped around, as majoritarian systems inherently lead to a 50%+1 situation in politics, which I'd say is the definition of "tyranny of the majority".

I understand that there are about several dozen reasons as to why it isn't a thing - the relationship between the state governments and the national government and so on - but it's still baffling to see such.

at large districts are not allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

They specifically said the person you voted for represents you and only those who voted for them therefore how do you determine who voted for who? They seem to be implying no secret ballot

I'm not seeing your point here. If I vote for Party A in District 1, and the candidate of Party B wins in my district, he still represents me, i.e. speaks for me in the legislative body that he or she is elected to. That's the whole point of a representative democracy in contrast to a direct democracy.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think the idea that members represent everyone in their district whether they voted for them or not, is just a romantic myth. It's what they're supposed to do, and they may pay lip service to it, but really they represent the people who voted for them and perhaps the swing voters who might vote for them next time. But why would they do anything for those bastards firmly in the other camp, who last election did their utmost to boot them out? They don't owe those people anything.

On a more theoretical note, voting is the delegation of the voter's power to someone who represents them. If they didn't actually vote for that person, how did their power end up in the hands of that representative? The answer is that it didn't, and I'm led to the conclusion that the representative's power (ie, their voting power in parliament) should be strictly determined by how many votes they actually got. And you can add a second representative if you like, with lesser power since they "lost" the election by getting fewer votes.

[Vistulange]

I'm not seeing your point here. If I vote for Party A in District 1, and the candidate of Party B wins in my district, he still represents me, i.e. speaks for me in the legislative body that he or she is elected to. That's the whole point of a representative democracy in contrast to a direct democracy.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think the idea that members represent everyone in their district whether they voted for them or not, is just a romantic myth. It's what they're supposed to do, and they may pay lip service to it, but really they represent the people who voted for them and perhaps the swing voters who might vote for them next time. But why would they do anything for those bastards firmly in the other camp, who last election did their utmost to boot them out? They don't owe those people anything.

On a more theoretical note, voting is the delegation of the voter's power to someone who represents them. If they didn't actually vote for that person, how did their power end up in the hands of that representative? The answer is that it didn't, and I'm led to the conclusion that the representative's power (ie, their voting power in parliament) should be strictly determined by how many votes they actually got. And you can add a second representative if you like, with lesser power since they "lost" the election by getting fewer votes.

That's true, what I said represents the theory of representative democracy, not necessarily the practice of it we see in everyday life. Yet, differentiating between the level of authority accorded to these representatives is effectively differentiating between citizens, and thus, the whole idea of "one citizen, one vote" is undermined at a fundamental level, because their representatives will not be equal.

I should note that the entire narrative of an elected representative not doing anything for the "other side" is a product of increasing polarisation, as well as arguably a result of the FPTP single-member constituency system itself, as the resulting costs of losing that single representative eventually turn the political scene into a battlefield where the other side is seen as an enemy. I would not be so bold as to claim that multiple-seat constituencies are immune from such - my own country as an example - but I daresay there are certainly more opportunities for elected officials to reach out to more voters, since they are often required to actively work with the members elected from the "other side" in order to get work done. Coalition governments are a good example for these: you can't get much done if you stick to your guns and view the other side as an enemy, but in working with the representatives of this "other side", you effectively work for them, as well.

[Galloism]

You don't.

That's the point of the secret ballot, San Lumen. Shockingly, a number of countries do it the way he's proposed.

They specifically said the person you voted for represents you and only those who voted for them therefore how do you determine who voted for who? They seem to be implying no secret ballot

You’re making this too hard.

He’s essentially arguing a corporate governance model, except “shareholders” are “representatives” and “shares” are “voters”.

This doesn’t require piercing the secret ballot.

[Duvniask]

You know, I was gonna leave it, but it helps if you actually read the report in question and don't make shit up and lie about it.

The laziness is on your part; that or you're deliberately spreading misinformation, which I suppose is par for the course.

Having completely lost the argument, you're now attacking me? That's real mature on your part, why I should adopt your ideology and help you right away! Just kidding!

I'm not interested in convincing you, the time for that is clearly past. I'm interested in lettings others know of your disingenuous nature, and that you are not to be taken seriously because you spread falsehood. You play at debate, amusing yourself in the process. It fits with that Sartre quote.

If you want me to engage with you in actual discussion, you'll have to do better than this crap. Unless you're just really confused about what you yourself have been saying, which isn't any better.

-snip-
That's the unedited start of the article. From Therm's claim:

For example you have states like Washington and New Hampshire which is 80% and 94% white respectively. When you then figure in that New Hampshire has the largest house body of any state it becomes quite clear that the study might be flawed. I’d rather see a state by state representation than compared to the national population

Wow, it's as if his point addresses the very beginning of the article... oh wait, that's because it does!

He says "it becomes quite clear that the study might be flawed". The article might be, but if you have eyes that can see, you can tell he's talking about the study, given that it's, you know, what he's fucking saying, lmao.

On a side note, that just means he didn't look at the actual study either.

The OP cited the article, so Therm was addressing the source cited in the OP, and I was commenting on Therm's post. Having read the OP's article, nowhere does it mention the breakdown by states on the basis of race/ethnicity. Maybe the source does, but the OP didn't cite the source directly, and it's not my job to click on every single link in the OP's article. When I write an OP, I cite the relevant data on NSG, and provide all link directly. If you think that I have to click not just on OP's link, but on every link in the OP, you can Crimea River, cause that ain't happening.

You commented on his post, which said the study might be flawed, with the following: "Are you asking for researches to do actual research, rather than to cut corners, slack off, and then pretend to be outraged to cover cutting corners and slacking off? You want researchers to do research? WHITE PRIVILEGE! Next thing you'll suggest is that journalists engage in journalism. Why you gotta be so radical Therm?"

You're talking about the researchers, not the journalists who wrote the article. In fact, you make that distinction - now why would you do that if by "researcher" you mean journalist? You argue in bad faith by making shit up, and when called out you respond like a shapeshifter, taking on a new form and pretending it to always have been so - you make up more shit to hide the absurdity of your remarks. Am I to believe this blatantly dishonest behavior is indicative of someone that cares for actual discussion rather than amusing himself and scoring points?

[Shofercia]

Having completely lost the argument, you're now attacking me? That's real mature on your part, why I should adopt your ideology and help you right away! Just kidding!

I'm not interested in convincing you, the time for that is clearly past. I'm interested in lettings others know of your disingenuous nature, and that you are not to be taken seriously because you spread falsehood. You play at debate, amusing yourself in the process. It fits with that Sartre quote.

By pointing out that Affirmative Action is the reverse of White Privilege, thus destroying your argument about White Privilege, you're now going to attack me on the forum for the rest of time, because I destroyed part of a single argument that you made? Wow, that's just plain sad.

If you want me to engage with you in actual discussion, you'll have to do better than this crap. Unless you're just really confused about what you yourself have been saying, which isn't any better.

So bringing up Affirmative Action in the contest of a discussion about White Privilege instantly gets me attacked, without any explanation why that's bad, because I fail to naturally see it. Why are you deliberately acting like the poster child for cancel culture? I made an argument about White Privilege and Affirmative Action, and you want me cancelled on NSG merely for making said argument. I guess Tucker Carlson was right, no debate, just cancellation if someone brings up unpopular topics.

-snip-
That's the unedited start of the article. From Therm's claim:

For example you have states like Washington and New Hampshire which is 80% and 94% white respectively. When you then figure in that New Hampshire has the largest house body of any state it becomes quite clear that the study might be flawed. I’d rather see a state by state representation than compared to the national population

Wow, it's as if his point addresses the very beginning of the article... oh wait, that's because it does!

He says "it becomes quite clear that the study might be flawed". The article might be, but if you have eyes that can see, you can tell he's talking about the study, given that it's, you know, what he's fucking saying, lmao.

On a side note, that just means he didn't look at the actual study either.

The part of his quote that I was responding to, that you actually quoted, was: I’d rather see a state by state representation than compared to the national population

If you want to be taken seriously, you actually have to read to the very end of quote that's four lines or less.

The OP cited the article, so Therm was addressing the source cited in the OP, and I was commenting on Therm's post. Having read the OP's article, nowhere does it mention the breakdown by states on the basis of race/ethnicity. Maybe the source does, but the OP didn't cite the source directly, and it's not my job to click on every single link in the OP's article. When I write an OP, I cite the relevant data on NSG, and provide all link directly. If you think that I have to click not just on OP's link, but on every link in the OP, you can Crimea River, cause that ain't happening.

You commented on his post, which said the study might be flawed, with the following: "Are you asking for researches to do actual research, rather than to cut corners, slack off, and then pretend to be outraged to cover cutting corners and slacking off? You want researchers to do research? WHITE PRIVILEGE! Next thing you'll suggest is that journalists engage in journalism. Why you gotta be so radical Therm?"

I'm commenting on the article's devious nature of trying to skew the data, as Therm explained, like the very last sentence he wrote that you ignored.

You're talking about the researchers, not the journalists who wrote the article. In fact, you make that distinction - now why would you do that if by "researcher" you mean journalist? You argue in bad faith by making shit up, and when called out you respond like a shapeshifter, taking on a new form and pretending it to always have been so - you make up more shit to hide the absurdity of your remarks. Am I to believe this blatantly dishonest behavior is indicative of someone that cares for actual discussion rather than amusing himself and scoring points?

I'm also talking about journalists: Next thing you'll suggest is that journalists engage in journalism. Like the very journalists that wrote the article. You seem to be so riled up by my point about Affirmative Action and White Privilege, because said point annihilates your theory and mindset about White Privilege, that you refuse to debate that point, but launch attack after attack after attack against me. And the fact is that I can understand why, as Adam Connover on Adam Ruins Everything, explains this brilliantly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm_NgnZrGbg

This is known as a Backfire Effect, and you, Duvniask, are demonstrating numerous symptoms of it. Until I brought up White Privilege and Affirmation Action, you were being very civil. The very post I mentioned it, you threw your hands in the air, and just waited for another post to attack me. When I responded to Therm, you got your wish, but face it, for you this isn't about an opinion on a forum; that's small potatoes. For you, it's about attacking anyone daring to mention Affirmative Action in the context of the White Privilege Debate.

My response to Therm is, at best, an opinion that might sway maybe ten individuals, if that. Small potatoes. But the destruction of the White Privilege narrative with Affirmative Action, could cause others to look into welfare programs, do a comparison of prison treatment on the basis of class and compare that to the very same treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity, school choices for rich and poor vs ethnic minorities, drug abuse, etc. Dave Chapelle made a comment about Opiod epidemic to the Crack epidemic, showing how similar they were. We can fix society on the basis of class, but not on the basis of race, due to the massive pushback that typically results when racism enter the political sphere. And yet, you're trying to fix it on the basis of race, thus keeping the very minorities that you're claiming to help, in a state of poverty.

You're either doing this because you're influenced by the Critical Race Theory beyond redemption, or you're doing this at the behest of the ruling class, that wants to keep the poor in poverty, so the rich can continue to reap massive economic gains of the Age of Technology. My only question for you is this:

do you expect anyone here to believe you, that you're really after some little comment, rather than a point that annihilates the White Privilege Ideology? If so, Futurama has an excellent meme for that: "oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!"

[Duvniask]

By pointing out that Affirmative Action is the reverse of White Privilege, thus destroying your argument about White Privilege, you're now going to attack me on the forum for the rest of time, because I destroyed part of a single argument that you made? Wow, that's just plain sad.

It doesn't destroy any argument, except to someone who thinks circular logic is impressive. You are so totally and utterly ignorant of the topic that you think a measure, which is designed to combat discrimination and empower otherwise disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, is somehow evidence of the lack of need for that very same measure. It's either that or deliberately spreading falsehood, because you find playing at debate amusing.

It's very unimpressive that you think you have "destroyed" anything by effectively saying "because we have policies that try to address white privilege, therefore white privilege destroyed, SJW libtards owned". Never mind that we can procure actual data that evidences racial disparity, no no no, because Shofercia here thinks that because anyone in our society dares take that to heart and try addressing it, that means the problem must already be solved and that the uppity Black people are probably getting too big a share of the pie.

Pure sophistry. Disingenuousness. And then suggesting I'm the one with a psychological issue, because you made an argument so shitty I didn't find it worth responding to.

[Thermodolia]

I find it very odd that it isn't a thing already. It's actually far more conducive in preventing the "tyranny of the majority" the "republic, not democracy" folks have their heads wrapped around, as majoritarian systems inherently lead to a 50%+1 situation in politics, which I'd say is the definition of "tyranny of the majority".

I understand that there are about several dozen reasons as to why it isn't a thing - the relationship between the state governments and the national government and so on - but it's still baffling to see such.

at large districts are not allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

We should probably change that then

[Bear Stearns]

oh the horror, white men

Things people that drool from their mouths say.

Uh...reply to the wrong person?

[The Two Jerseys]

at large districts are not allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

We should probably change that then

I'm fine with that.

[Thermodolia]

Things people that drool from their mouths say.

Uh...reply to the wrong person?

I think it was talking about those who say such things

[Thermodolia]

I find it very odd that it isn't a thing already. It's actually far more conducive in preventing the "tyranny of the majority" the "republic, not democracy" folks have their heads wrapped around, as majoritarian systems inherently lead to a 50%+1 situation in politics, which I'd say is the definition of "tyranny of the majority".

I understand that there are about several dozen reasons as to why it isn't a thing - the relationship between the state governments and the national government and so on - but it's still baffling to see such.

at large districts are not allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

And besides that only covers federal elections. State legislatures are free to have as many at large districts as they want

[Shofercia]

By pointing out that Affirmative Action is the reverse of White Privilege, thus destroying your argument about White Privilege, you're now going to attack me on the forum for the rest of time, because I destroyed part of a single argument that you made? Wow, that's just plain sad.

It doesn't destroy any argument, except to someone who thinks circular logic is impressive. You are so totally and utterly ignorant of the topic that you think a measure, which is designed to combat discrimination and empower otherwise disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, is somehow evidence of the lack of need for that very same measure. It's either that or deliberately spreading falsehood, because you find playing at debate amusing.

It's very unimpressive that you think you have "destroyed" anything by effectively saying "because we have policies that try to address white privilege, therefore white privilege destroyed, SJW libtards owned". Never mind that we can procure actual data that evidences racial disparity, no no no, because Shofercia here thinks that because anyone in our society dares take that to heart and try addressing it, that means the problem must already be solved and that the uppity Black people are probably getting too big a share of the pie.

Pure sophistry. Disingenuousness. And then suggesting I'm the one with a psychological issue, because you made an argument so shitty I didn't find it worth responding to.

When I find something that's not worth responding to, I don't respond to it, which seems to be a concept that's a tad difficult for you. Responding that the argument "sucks", which is about the most mature summary I can provide for you response, is still a response. It's also not circular logic, as White Privilege, according to the Critical Race Theory, claims that whites are always privileged, whereas Affirmative Action is clear cut example where that's not the case.

Also, Affirmative Action treats a symptom, rather than the decease. And here's Gallo explaining why it might suck:

It’s actually worth note AA at the college level might actually be even worse than doing nothing at all. The consequences of academic mismatch are well documented, and AA likely hurts the very students it was supposed to help.

Here’s a brief summary of some of the research:

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publica ... ive-action

That being said, if you want to fix it, you need look no further than three things:

1) Real estate taxes to fund primary schools is a poverty trap that disproportionately affects black students. We need a per student funding system that ignores the wealth of the state or area.
2) The school to prison pipeline hits black male students especially hard, and we need to put a stop to.
3) We need to crack down on gangs by giving positive alternatives. Gangs often recruit black teens and convince otherwise intelligent teens they don’t need white education, and the gang is their only friend. For Pete’s sake, we can give them friends.

Furthermore, you were civil until I brought up Affirmative Action; then you went berserk. It was insult after insult, after insult, which can be summarized as "my opponent beat me in a debate, he's a liar!" Again, I'm being generous with the summary, Duvniask.

Also, I've never argued that the Government treats all people equally; I've argued that Rights aren't privileges and that we shouldn't be calling Rights, privileges because they're not. Privileges can be taken away on a whim; Rights can't. MLK Jr. fought for Rights, not privileges. Duh! And I'm for helping African Americans fight for their Rights when those are violated, but not under the moronic Critical Race Theory, which thinks like a Sith - in absolutes.

So let's summarize this post of yours, Duvniask:
1. Repeated insults along the "mah opponent beat me, ergo he be lying, because I'm invincible, like Boris in James Bond!" Although, Boris did get the chills
2. A strawman, rebutting something I've never argued
3. An assertion that treating a symptom that masks the decease is actually helpful, followed by claims that anyone who dares to think otherwise is "deliberately spreading falsehood"
4. And you provided evidence... for the strawman and nothing else

I guess under Affirmative Action that post could be worthy of a Gold Star. Perhaps also under the imagined privilege that poor whites, whose fathers are unemployed and addicted to opiods, have.

For the umpteenth time: you don't have the support to help the African American community on the basis of race. You do have the support to help the African American community on the basis of class. That's reality. Much like Affirmative Action, you're hurting the community that you claim you're helping.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... on/263122/

Affirmative action in university admissions started in the late 1960s as a noble effort to jump-start racial integration and foster equal opportunity. But somewhere along the decades, it has lost its way.

Over time, it has become a political lightning rod and one of our most divisive social policies. It has evolved into a regime of racial preferences at almost all selective schools -- preferences so strikingly large and politically unpopular that administrators work hard to conceal them. The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper-middle-class minorities on whom they often inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working-class and poor people of all races are given short shrift. Academic leaders often find themselves flouting the law and acting in ways that aggravate the worst consequences of large preferences. They have become prisoners of a system that many privately deplore for its often-perverse unintended effects but feel they cannot escape...

Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively -- even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools... We refer to this problem as "mismatch," a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures.

You can counter that argument. But to pretend that anyone who opposes Affirmative Action is a liar, or that Affirmative Action doesn't give upper middle class minorities an even bigger advantage over poor whites, is the very definition of total, and utter, bullshit, Duvniask. As is White Privilege: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf

The overall college enrollment rate for 18- to 24- year-olds increased from 35 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2018. In 2018, the college enrollment rate was higher for 18- to 24-year-olds who were Asian (59 percent) than for 18- to 24- year-olds who were White (42 percent), Black (37 percent), and Hispanic (36 percent).

Down with Asian Privilege! Just kidding!

[San Lumen]

at large districts are not allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

And besides that only covers federal elections. State legislatures are free to have as many at large districts as they want

No state legislature has at large districts.

[Ansarre]

If POC aren't represented because their elected officials don't share the same skin tone as them, then everyone conservative living in a blue district isn't represented and vice versa.

That's a ridiculous argument

I don't think so. Political values are arguably more important than skin tone.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If POC aren't represented because their elected officials don't share the same skin tone as them, then everyone conservative living in a blue district isn't represented and vice versa.

That's a ridiculous argument

I don't think so. Political values are arguably more important than skin tone.

I think so. Political values are arguably more important than skin tone ... but let's not argue about that. Neither of us is likely to persuade the other at all. Ultimately it's not for me to say whether a person's skin tone or their politics is more important to them, so I can hardly take one side or the other. And nor I think, can you.

As I said before (apologies if you replied and I missed it): everyone conservative living in a blue district actually aren't represented. They didn't get the representative they wanted, they got the one they didn't want (and apologies to centrists, we'll deal with them separately). Representatives represent the people who voted for them, and they don't represent those who voted against them any more than they represent children, felons, illegal immigrants or anyone who just didn't bother to vote.

POC are still represented by someone (if they voted for that someone and they were elected) but it still might not be the candidate that they would most prefer. The question is, are there obstacles of socioeconomic circumstances keeping that most-preferred candidate from doing the unpaid work of running in a primary, are there obstacles to them in the primary process itself, and even are there biases in the minds of voters which disadvantage that most-preferred candidate in the primary and general elections?

Your attempt to equate them aside, how would your concerns about non-representation of the voting majority ever be remedied? I'm pretty sure they can't, within the existing electoral system. Though you could argue for an extreme (but not partisan) form of gerrymander: draw lines as closely as possible around blue voters to make super-blue districts (with a high percentage of represented voters and few unrepresented ones), do the same for red areas, and whatever is left (purple areas) I guess will just have to suffer the same "nearly half unrepresented" problem. This would reduce the problem you see, but I suggest it would also suck dog balls.

My problem however has possible solutions. I'm sure you don't want to hear about those.

The main point I want to make here is that you have drawn a false equivalence between a problem you know can't be solved, and the problem being discussed in this thread. If you did that for some other reason than to imply it's not even worth thinking about our problem because it too, will never solved, then speak now or forever hold your peace!

[Purpelia]

Your system is multi-member constituency with a statewide list. You get a medal, because with some details attended to, it's really not bad.

Think about what happens though, if more than enough people vote for one candidate. The only option you have is to put that candidate in office, but any extra votes beyond those required are basically wasted. Those people literally aren't represented, or to put it another way, all the people who voted for them had part of their vote wasted.

This violates the common principle that all votes cast should be equal. One person one vote.

I think that problem can be solved by including preference voting. "Excess" votes (or more precisely a fraction of each vote cast for the candidate with an excess) is transferred to each of the candidates the voters gave as their second preferences.

It's actually rather complicated to count such a vote, giving up the virtue of being transparent to voters, and in practice confusing some voters, but the calculations once entered into a computer are very quick and verifiably deterministic. Being complicated doesn't bother a computer.

No, they are not wasted because that's not how representation works. Just as votes made by people whose candidate failed to win and enter legislature are also NOT wasted. The value of a vote is NOT in having your candidate win or loose. Rather the value of a vote is intrinsic to the vote it self and comes from the fact that it represents your ability to have your voice and opinion heard by the population who, by virtue of each having the same right collectively decide on the outcome. Even if you loose, even if you are literally the one and only guy that voted for your candidate, your vote matters.

Your way in contrast would literally be undermining the very concept of democracy by denying peoples right to be heard be arbitrarily choosing to give their vote to someone THEY THEM SELF DID NOT PICK. It would literally be the antithesis to democracy and all it stands for.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

I dont understand. How do you determine who represents who?

You sort of have a point.

Say Barron is a concrete worker and really wants to see construction begin on that Bridge To Cowherd the previous rep got started near his place (before the rep was voted out and the funding was cancelled). So he goes to lobby his representative.

Barron knows exactly who his representative is, because that's who he voted for. But how does the rep know that?

Suppose the rep just doesn't ask. She's a politician, she doesn't want to lose a voter by violating their ballot secrecy. And anyway, Barron might just lie, since it's pretty obvious the rep wants to hear "I voted for you"

Or we could infringe a bit on secrecy of the vote. If Barron wants to lobby his own rep, he has to show proof of how he voted, or else be treated as "out of district". He can lobby any of the representatives of course, but unless they know he's "one of theirs" he won't get much attention.

Maintaining secrecy stills seems best. It does break the link (which currently is verifiable just with a street address) between the constituent and the representative. Making all the representatives partly but only partly "theirs".

I suppose you could argue it's a bit that way already. I doubt you'd get much joy from a representative you refused to even give your name to. From your name they can find your address on the electoral roll or phone book, and then you're either a constituent ... or a pest.

Constituents are not necessarily voters. If representatives could tell right away if the person voted for them, rather than just being eligible to vote in their district, they could give that person more time and consideration at the expense of the others. Thus representing them better.

I'm still vacillating on the ballot privacy. Allowing its disclosure to reps might increase incentive to vote (get lobbying power). But it might also decrease incentive to vote (fear of the representative or someone else in the party accidentally leaking how they voted, losing them their job etc). It's a tough one.

[Purpelia]

Secret ballots are the primary and most valuable and effective means of preventing voter suppression, intimidation and coercion. And that is more important than any potential benefit that is to be gained for not having it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your system is multi-member constituency with a statewide list. You get a medal, because with some details attended to, it's really not bad.

Think about what happens though, if more than enough people vote for one candidate. The only option you have is to put that candidate in office, but any extra votes beyond those required are basically wasted. Those people literally aren't represented, or to put it another way, all the people who voted for them had part of their vote wasted.

This violates the common principle that all votes cast should be equal. One person one vote.

I think that problem can be solved by including preference voting. "Excess" votes (or more precisely a fraction of each vote cast for the candidate with an excess) is transferred to each of the candidates the voters gave as their second preferences.

It's actually rather complicated to count such a vote, giving up the virtue of being transparent to voters, and in practice confusing some voters, but the calculations once entered into a computer are very quick and verifiably deterministic. Being complicated doesn't bother a computer.

No, they are not wasted because that's not how representation works.

Oh this will be good. I'm going to get a lecture on how representation works.

Just as votes made by people whose candidate failed to win and enter legislature are also NOT wasted. The value of a vote is NOT in having your candidate win or loose.

Ahh. So that's why we don't bother voting. Or count how many votes there are. Or compare vote totals to see which one is bigger. I was wondering about that ... even on TV you can tell it's all fake.

Rather the value of a vote is intrinsic to the vote it self and comes from the fact that it represents your ability to have your voice and opinion heard by the population who, by virtue of each having the same right collectively decide on the outcome.

Well this is better. "Your ability to have your voice and opinion heard" isn't that far away from "your little share of power".

I don't know about you, but if that's what voting is about I'd like to be able to use my voice more effectively, and express my opinion with a little more detail than just ranking a list of names that are given to me.

Is there some model democracy somewhere, where you vote by submitting a short essay? Maybe someday, when there's a massive AI to "count" the vote and form government ...

Even if you loose, even if you are literally the one and only guy that voted for your candidate, your vote matters.

While true, it's just a fraction of the truth. Yes, sending a signal to government (AND society) that you dissented from the consensus does matter.

But it matters MUCH more who actually wins. We delegate a fraction of our personal power, together empowering government to do (frankly) whatever it wants, up to and including obliterating continents. Government is a thing of enormous power, so it baffles me that you can overlook that. Why is the public signalling aspect of voting more significant to you?

We make decisions (each a tiny fraction of the overall decision), torn always between those who we trust with power but who probably won't get much done, and those who are suspiciously adept with power but might just fix the pothole in the sky.

Your way in contrast would literally be undermining the very concept of democracy by denying peoples right to be heard be arbitrarily choosing to give their vote to someone THEY THEM SELF DID NOT PICK. It would literally be the antithesis to democracy and all it stands for.

You misunderstand. A voter's second preference is residual. It goes to some other candidate because that honors it more than throwing it away. And I say "residual" because it's that fraction of their one vote, which wasn't needed to elect their first preference candidate ... their favourite WILL get elected, but it didn't require all of their vote, so the remainder goes to whichever other candidate the voter specified on their ballot. Typically by putting the number 2 next to the name.

There are more details, but one in particular I know you'll object to the lack of. What if the voter only likes one of the candidates, despises all the others, and wants to be sure that not even a fraction of their vote will go to one of the others? Well systems differ. Ideally every voter would put a digit in every box. Well informed voters do, so hopefully you can get away with the rule "Number one or more boxes, starting with the digit 1" and only recommend numbering them all. It's fairly robust, as long as most voters number 3 or more (say from a field of 10). But in the worst case scenario, every voter casting only a 1 vote, it reverts to FPTP. Whoever got the most 1's wins, whether that's a majority or not.

Well the short version of that is "just don't put a 2"

Well that wasn't so bad. You really shouldn't lower expectations in the very first line. That only works if you're going to exceed them.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Secret ballots are the primary and most valuable and effective means of preventing voter suppression, intimidation and coercion. And that is more important than any potential benefit that is to be gained for not having it.

Indeed, I used to hold the principle dear.

Until I became aware of postal voting, and that became more common.

Postal voting, or absolute privacy of the vote. You can only pick one!

[Purpelia]

Secret ballots are the primary and most valuable and effective means of preventing voter suppression, intimidation and coercion. And that is more important than any potential benefit that is to be gained for not having it.

Indeed, I used to hold the principle dear.

Until I became aware of postal voting, and that became more common.

Postal voting, or absolute privacy of the vote. You can only pick one!

Postal voting, online voting and other such things are in my view extremely stupid and counterproductive. As you say they violate privacy but that's just the beginning. Any method where by the path from voter to a sealed ballot container is separated by insecure steps is open to fraud to an epic degree.

Oh this will be good. I'm going to get a lecture on how representation works.

That's mighty snarky coming from a racist. Sorry, couldn't resist. Also sorry for belaboring the point but like I was honestly genuinely shocked by that post of yours a while back. I mean, I am not unfamiliar with racists. I even know some personally. But the matter of fact way that was posted a if it was absolute truth that just went without saying disturbed me.

Well this is better. "Your ability to have your voice and opinion heard" isn't that far away from "your little share of power".

On the contrary, it is very far away. Power is not vested in the individual citizen but in the people as a whole. And it is the people who decide if your opinion is correct and deserves representation in government or incorrect and does not.
For example, there may be a racist party that advocates for a return to slavery. And that's fine. Some people might hold that opinion. Those people might even vote for that party. And that too is just fine. It's their right and indeed duty as citizens of a democracy to have their voice heard. But just as it is their right to have their voice heard so it is the right of everyone else to say "FUCK NO" and vote for the other guys.

Democracy is not about giving everyone a piece of victory. It is about giving everyone a chance to state his case and than having the majority decide whose case is right.

I don't know about you, but if that's what voting is about I'd like to be able to use my voice more effectively, and express my opinion with a little more detail than just ranking a list of names that are given to me.

The problem with this statement is that you are literally rejecting all forms of representative democracy. And the only democratic form that would appear to please you would be an open debate in the style of a brainstorming session. Now, I will admit that from a purely philosophical standpoint that would indeed be the best system. But sadly it is simply not a practical one for large populations.

Is there some model democracy somewhere, where you vote by submitting a short essay? Maybe someday, when there's a massive AI to "count" the vote and form government ...

The reason why voting in a representative system is done via ballots designed to resemble a multiple choice test is to ensure there is no room for interpretation on part of those counting. And this is because there is simply no practical way to ensure honesty of interpretation of anything that is even remotely open ended on the sheer scale of national elections.

While true, it's just a fraction of the truth. Yes, sending a signal to government (AND society) that you dissented from the consensus does matter.

But it matters MUCH more who actually wins. We delegate a fraction of our personal power, together empowering government to do (frankly) whatever it wants, up to and including obliterating continents. Government is a thing of enormous power, so it baffles me that you can overlook that. Why is the public signalling aspect of voting more significant to you?

I really don't see how you come up with these. I mean, you do realize that the very essence of democracy is rule by the majority will of the people. It is not just inevitable but by design that those who disagree with this majority will shall be left out.
After all, would you want the racist party who has 5 votes total to get a person into government simply because they exist? I wouldn't.

We make decisions (each a tiny fraction of the overall decision), torn always between those who we trust with power but who probably won't get much done, and those who are suspiciously adept with power but might just fix the pothole in the sky.

You don't trust anyone. You vote for he whom you think is least evil, not for he whom you consider most good. All politicians are greedy, selfish and manipulative. They are all in it for personal wealth and power. But you pick the one who you as an individual logically conclude will benefit you the most on their way to it.

You misunderstand. A voter's second preference is residual. It goes to some other candidate because that honors it more than throwing it away. And I say "residual" because it's that fraction of their one vote, which wasn't needed to elect their first preference candidate ... their favourite WILL get elected, but it didn't require all of their vote, so the remainder goes to whichever other candidate the voter specified on their ballot. Typically by putting the number 2 next to the name

There are more details, but one in particular I know you'll object to the lack of. What if the voter only likes one of the candidates, despises all the others, and wants to be sure that not even a fraction of their vote will go to one of the others? Well systems differ. Ideally every voter would put a digit in every box. Well informed voters do, so hopefully you can get away with the rule "Number one or more boxes, starting with the digit 1" and only recommend numbering them all. It's fairly robust, as long as most voters number 3 or more (say from a field of 10). But in the worst case scenario, every voter casting only a 1 vote, it reverts to FPTP. Whoever got the most 1's wins, whether that's a majority or not.

So basically what you propose is a point system where each person gives each option a certain number of points on a scale of 1 to N where N is the number of options available, it's all added up and votes assigned that way?

Well to be perfectly honest that is NOT what you mentioned originally but it is also NOT a terrible idea. Just as long as there is in fact an option to give one or more options a flat 0. After all, democracy demands we allow even the heinous racist party of slaveowners to compete but I'll be damned if I permit them to get a point from my vote. It still has large issues with the practicality of things once you get to large systems though.

Take my country for example. We have about 50ish registered political parties. Most of them are aligned into various power blocks of course. Now I did enough research last election to figure out who to vote for. But actually doing the research to rate all 50 of them in order of preference is an amount of work that would require months of full time labor.

Well that wasn't so bad. You really shouldn't lower expectations in the very first line. That only works if you're going to exceed them.

Says the racist.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Indeed, I used to hold the principle dear.

Until I became aware of postal voting, and that became more common.

Postal voting, or absolute privacy of the vote. You can only pick one!

Postal voting, online voting and other such things are in my view extremely stupid and counterproductive. As you say they violate privacy but that's just the beginning. Any method where by the path from voter to a sealed ballot container is separated by insecure steps is open to fraud to an epic degree.

Oh this will be good. I'm going to get a lecture on how representation works.

That's mighty snarky coming from a racist. Sorry, couldn't resist. Also sorry for belaboring the point but like I was honestly genuinely shocked by that post of yours a while back. I mean, I am not unfamiliar with racists. I even know some personally. But the matter of fact way that was posted a if it was absolute truth that just went without saying disturbed me.

Well this is better. "Your ability to have your voice and opinion heard" isn't that far away from "your little share of power".

On the contrary, it is very far away. Power is not vested in the individual citizen but in the people as a whole. And it is the people who decide if your opinion is correct and deserves representation in government or incorrect and does not.
For example, there may be a racist party that advocates for a return to slavery. And that's fine. Some people might hold that opinion. Those people might even vote for that party. And that too is just fine. It's their right and indeed duty as citizens of a democracy to have their voice heard. But just as it is their right to have their voice heard so it is the right of everyone else to say "FUCK NO" and vote for the other guys.

Democracy is not about giving everyone a piece of victory. It is about giving everyone a chance to state his case and than having the majority decide whose case is right.

Just to be clear, we're talking about the American model of democracy, right?
I just want to be clear, I agree with that if "Democracy" is written to mean that, but if it's meant to mean democracy in general, democracy as a principle, then it's hardly better than an insult, to Democracy.

Minority interests should have their own representation in Parliament. Even if the whole term passes without their representative being on the winning side of a vote, they are still exerting power. There are many more things the government could do, but doesn't even try because there is an Opposition, ready to vote with any dissidents of the ruling party, who may defect to defeat legislation they think goes too far.

That's in the parliament. And it applies whether we're talking a two-party system like the US, or a multi-party system like the Netherlands.

But where's the link between voters and representatives? The representatives even of a very minor faction of the people, elected in small numbers, do not have much power. But they do have some, throughout the term of parliament. Back amongst the people, who has representation and who does not? In the US system, none of the minority (or minorities! maybe some voted Libertarian) are represented, because they "lost". Their candidate lost.

I put it to you that any system which gives representation to the minority as well as the majority, while still being formally democratic, provides MORE, equal, quality representation, than the US house district system does.

As I can't imagine any object you may have besides "it's not democratic", then I'm about ready to give up. This thing which was pretty plain to me (multi-member proportional) just does not seem to get through.

I'm not a good teacher. Never have been, I'm too impatient. Fair Vote might explain it better for you

I don't know about you, but if that's what voting is about I'd like to be able to use my voice more effectively, and express my opinion with a little more detail than just ranking a list of names that are given to me.

The problem with this statement is that you are literally rejecting all forms of representative democracy.

No, I'm mocking your idea that the vote has nothing other than signal value. That it's our "voice" and a means of "expression".

There is very little communication in choosing between options given to you. And voting certainly lacks any other qualities of the voice. Nor is it expression of anything other than a preference between options.

And the only democratic form that would appear to please you would be an open debate in the style of a brainstorming session. Now, I will admit that from a purely philosophical standpoint that would indeed be the best system. But sadly it is simply not a practical one for large populations.

Is there some model democracy somewhere, where you vote by submitting a short essay? Maybe someday, when there's a massive AI to "count" the vote and form government ...

The reason why voting in a representative system is done via ballots designed to resemble a multiple choice test is to ensure there is no room for interpretation on part of those counting. And this is because there is simply no practical way to ensure honesty of interpretation of anything that is even remotely open ended on the sheer scale of national elections.

You're stating the obvious here, except you seem to think you're contradicting me. I know the origins of the multiple choice ballot. We're still using systems that were designed not just for easy and safe counting, but also to allow illiterate people to vote. I guess that still has to be an option: however few of them there are, they must still be enabled to vote.

But we don't need to limit future improved systems to those so simple that illiterate people can comprehend and oversee them. While there would be real peril in a system so complicated that only mathematicians and systems analysts could verify that it was working properly, still we can surely go for something a little better than the US steam-age without having a paranoid freakout about how complex it is?

Just keep it simple at the voter's end, don't worry about the smarter voters voting strategically unless a problem develops (have the limits of acceptable "problems" written into the system so there's no dispute over whether to reform it or not), or alternatively do our best to educate all voters on strategic methods to maximize the effect of their vote. What I'm getting at is never restrict a voter's exercise of power unless absolutely necessary (say they find a loophole that allows them to get their vote counted multiple times). Reforms should always aim to increase voter power in total (eg extending the franchise to younger people), keep it as nearly equal between one of them and the other, as possible, and provide to as many of the voters as possible, their due representation in parliament.

And if that's not "democracy" to you, then so be it.

While true, it's just a fraction of the truth. Yes, sending a signal to government (AND society) that you dissented from the consensus does matter.

But it matters MUCH more who actually wins. We delegate a fraction of our personal power, together empowering government to do (frankly) whatever it wants, up to and including obliterating continents. Government is a thing of enormous power, so it baffles me that you can overlook that. Why is the public signalling aspect of voting more significant to you?

I really don't see how you come up with these. I mean, you do realize that the very essence of democracy is rule by the majority will of the people.

No. Nope. Not even a whit of agreement with you there. We have fundamentally different ideas of what democracy, or a good democracy, or even a shonky barely-functioning democracy IS.

You say it's absolute rule by the majority. I say it's every voter having representation, and the representatives tussel over what to do.

Your idea is fundamentally authoritarian. The majority of people, send their soldiers to defeat your enemy in the parliament. Of course not actually kill them, but suppress them with superior numbers, dominate them except that they do get to give a protest speech sometimes before a bill oppressing their share of the voters and enriching the majority's share of the voters, gets rammed through.

Before you deny it, remember what you said about representatives who break with the party line. You said that was "treason".

Well in my idea of democracy, it is the duty of members of government who see their government going too far, oppressing the people, blackening the name of their party, to cross the floor and vote with the opposition. If enough are brave enough to do it, they can form a temporary majority and defeat that bill. Why? What could make them throw away their standing with their own party, deal a defeat to their own party, give power and signal to the despised Opposition? Patriotism could do that, sir. Duty and fidelity to the people themselves could make them do that.

But to you it would be treason. Hmm.

It is not just inevitable but by design that those who disagree with this majority will shall be left out.
After all, would you want the racist party who has 5 votes total to get a person into government simply because they exist? I wouldn't.

That's an absurd proposition. If a country had 5 million voters, and 5 of them were enough to get representation ... the parliament would number 5 million.

I'm trying hard not to take offense. But I remember I did a reductio ad absurdum on a few of your points, so this is probably just a clumsy attempt to get me back.

We make decisions (each a tiny fraction of the overall decision), torn always between those who we trust with power but who probably won't get much done, and those who are suspiciously adept with power but might just fix the pothole in the sky.

You don't trust anyone. You vote for he whom you think is least evil, not for he whom you consider most good.

Speak for yourself. I consider other factors besides minimizing risk. And that seems like an approach which (if everyone did it) would see risk-averse and incompetent (never doing anything, they would never get practice and they would never learn) nobodies with no beliefs, no ambition for the country, nothing but "you know exactly what I'm going to do, means you can trust me") who would "guide" the country to be a quainty archaic stagnating backwater ... before dying in office at 98. If you really like the job he's done, you can keep him there! Just embalm him a bit, stick a rod up his bum to keep him from sagging, and prop him up in parliament to lead the government.

Not for me thankyou. I wouldn't even vote for a candidate who seemed afraid to break a few eggs. I'm don't mind if government takes a few risks, or even gets us in some trouble, if in the process it makes the whole country better. I'd rather they try and fail, than to never know if it would have worked or not, because they didn't have the guts to try. And so for enemy parties too: I don't like it when they implement a tough policy on immigrants, or various other things Liberals like to do, but I do respect them doing the things that could win big or lose big for them.

Sorry this is getting so long. You should feel free to be the first to cull it, 'cos I am soon.

All politicians are greedy, selfish and manipulative. They are all in it for personal wealth and power. But you pick the one who you as an individual logically conclude will benefit you the most on their way to it.

You misunderstand. A voter's second preference is residual. It goes to some other candidate because that honors it more than throwing it away. And I say "residual" because it's that fraction of their one vote, which wasn't needed to elect their first preference candidate ... their favourite WILL get elected, but it didn't require all of their vote, so the remainder goes to whichever other candidate the voter specified on their ballot. Typically by putting the number 2 next to the name

There are more details, but one in particular I know you'll object to the lack of. What if the voter only likes one of the candidates, despises all the others, and wants to be sure that not even a fraction of their vote will go to one of the others? Well systems differ. Ideally every voter would put a digit in every box. Well informed voters do, so hopefully you can get away with the rule "Number one or more boxes, starting with the digit 1" and only recommend numbering them all. It's fairly robust, as long as most voters number 3 or more (say from a field of 10). But in the worst case scenario, every voter casting only a 1 vote, it reverts to FPTP. Whoever got the most 1's wins, whether that's a majority or not.

So basically what you propose is a point system where each person gives each option a certain number of points on a scale of 1 to N where N is the number of options available, it's all added up and votes assigned that way?

Not my preferred system. Not very familiar with it actually, and Fairvote thinks it's not that good.

Well to be perfectly honest that is NOT what you mentioned originally but it is also NOT a terrible idea. Just as long as there is in fact an option to give one or more options a flat 0.

Yep. A lot of people hate all politicians ... but the one with the right letter after their name is "almost as bad". "Lesser of evils".

I don't really respect that, but I do respect their right not to vote for anyone they don't want.

After all, democracy demands we allow even the heinous racist party of slaveowners to compete but I'll be damned if I permit them to get a point from my vote. It still has large issues with the practicality of things once you get to large systems though.

Take my country for example. We have about 50ish registered political parties. Most of them are aligned into various power blocks of course. Now I did enough research last election to figure out who to vote for. But actually doing the research to rate all 50 of them in order of preference is an amount of work that would require months of full time labor.

Wow, the sudden return to civility and introduction of worthwhile anecdote is ... interesting.

It's good that you value your vote so much, that even a fraction going the wrong way would offend you. I'm like that too. I know the chances of it making any practical difference are like being hit by a meteorite, but I am really careful to get the whole ballot right because when the crazy-right independent goes up from 99 to 100 on election night I would worry part of the signal was from one of my preferences. Of course not the first or second one, I'm rarely in doubt about who I most want.

Well that wasn't so bad. You really shouldn't lower expectations in the very first line. That only works if you're going to exceed them.

Says the racist.

I beg your pardon. If you want to pitch one of The Emerald Legion's "anyone who believes in racism is a racist" doublethink brain twisters to me, explaining how I'm a racist for calling you a racist (which I didn't even) ... please do it in a separate post. I don't mind debating it for a while, but it seems a bit like trying to change the subject.

[Kaltovar]

Ok, why should we care exactly?

Legislatures ought to look like the electorate and the provinces they represent

No, they ought to think like the electorate and provinces they represent ... Or should they? Most Americans are pretty dumb. Anyways, racialism ain't it.

"People should vote for representatives based on whether or not their skin tone matches theirs" is a pretty dumb idea. I recently voted for 4 white men, a black man, a muslim woman and a chinese guy based on the words that came out of their mouths and their voting records.

It is interesting that close to 80% of legislators are white. Maybe it does point to some bad incentives and corrupted systems in our society, but it's also important to remember that 76% of Americans identify as white only ... So about 80% is 4% higher than the population baseline. That is a whole separate conversation to explore from whether or not it's a moral good for politicians to be ethnically homogeneous with their voting blocks.

Personally I think ethnically homogeneous voting blocks are really bad ideas but humanity seems to keep forgetting that lesson no matter how many times we have to do war about it.

[Elwher]

The person you voted for, if he gets in, represents you.

Your system is multi-member constituency with a statewide list. You get a medal, because with some details attended to, it's really not bad.

Think about what happens though, if more than enough people vote for one candidate. The only option you have is to put that candidate in office, but any extra votes beyond those required are basically wasted. Those people literally aren't represented, or to put it another way, all the people who voted for them had part of their vote wasted.

This violates the common principle that all votes cast should be equal. One person one vote.

I think that problem can be solved by including preference voting. "Excess" votes (or more precisely a fraction of each vote cast for the candidate with an excess) is transferred to each of the candidates the voters gave as their second preferences.

It's actually rather complicated to count such a vote, giving up the virtue of being transparent to voters, and in practice confusing some voters, but the calculations once entered into a computer are very quick and verifiably deterministic. Being complicated doesn't bother a computer.

I had considered that problem myself. Yours is one solution, the one I was playing around with was to give the elected representative an extra vote if he got double the required number, three if triple, etc. This would mean that a really popular candidate would have power proportional to his popularity among the electorate. If you wanted to make it even fairer, and even more complicated, there could be fractional votes awarded for excess votes not sufficient to gain the extra vote.