2019-2020 US Election Megathread III: Biden VS Biden

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Maryland. With 60% of the vote Democrats won 7 of 8 House seats.

ok but they still got the most seats. i said give an example of Democrats getting the most seats while losing the popular vote

Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said only Republicans gerrymander
I said that was wrong, they only do it MORE
You said give an example
I gave an example

What you're asking for now, well I'm looking, but it's not actually necessary that A wins more seats than B but loses the popular vote, to prove that gerrymandering exists. In fact, it's possible without any gerrymander at all.

[San Lumen]

ok but they still got the most seats. i said give an example of Democrats getting the most seats while losing the popular vote

Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said only Republicans gerrymander
I said that was wrong, they only do it MORE
You said give an example
I gave an example

What you're asking for now, well I'm looking, but it's not actually necessary that A wins more seats than B but loses the popular vote, to prove that gerrymandering exists. In fact, it's possible without any gerrymander at all.

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

[Aclion]

Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said only Republicans gerrymander
I said that was wrong, they only do it MORE
You said give an example
I gave an example

What you're asking for now, well I'm looking, but it's not actually necessary that A wins more seats than B but loses the popular vote, to prove that gerrymandering exists. In fact, it's possible without any gerrymander at all.

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

[Farnhamia]

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

States aren't subject to redistricting?

[Shrillland]

Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said only Republicans gerrymander
I said that was wrong, they only do it MORE
You said give an example
I gave an example

What you're asking for now, well I'm looking, but it's not actually necessary that A wins more seats than B but loses the popular vote, to prove that gerrymandering exists. In fact, it's possible without any gerrymander at all.

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

In 2018, no such example exists. On the other hand, Wisconsin had a majority of Democratic votes without a majority of Democratic seats, with 53.2% of the vote and 3 out of 8 seats.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

States aren't subject to redistricting?

They're not subject to having their boundaries redrawn every ten years. Redistricting.

As I'm sure you're going to point out, they are subject to having the Electoral College representation changed. It's a rough way of achieving the same end, more equal voting power than if the boundaries and the EC were left unchanged.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

In 2018, no such example exists. On the other hand, Wisconsin had a majority of Democratic votes without a majority of Democratic seats, with 53.2% of the vote and 3 out of 8 seats.

I wasn't sure enough to post it, but that's the one example I could find. In 2016 there were two such (Wisconsin and Virginia) but even so, it's not the hallmark of gerrymandering which San Lumen wants it to be. Other states ARE gerrymandered they just don't happen to be that purple, but they DO affect the House total to the advantage of Republicans.

EDIT: It used to be Democrats who did it the most, and got the most advantage. Until the 1970's I think.

[Shrillland]

In 2018, no such example exists. On the other hand, Wisconsin had a majority of Democratic votes without a majority of Democratic seats, with 53.2% of the vote and 3 out of 8 seats.

I wasn't sure enough to post it, but that's the one example I could find. In 2016 there were two such (Wisconsin and Virginia) but even so, it's not the hallmark of gerrymandering which San Lumen wants it to be. Other states ARE gerrymandered they just don't happen to be that purple, but they DO affect the House total to the advantage of Republicans.

That's true, I did see quite a few redder or historically redder states with wildly disproportionate vote-to-seat totals, Texas and California in particular are quite nasty...although in California's case it has to do more with a lot of places being won by very close margins.

[Aclion]

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

States aren't subject to redistricting?

It's basically impossible since New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Shrillland]

States aren't subject to redistricting?

It's basically impossible since New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Aye, it's only happened once...and even that was somewhat dodgy considering the Virginia state government that Congress accepted was a puppet of West Virginia created for the sole purpose of making West Virginia a state.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I wasn't sure enough to post it, but that's the one example I could find. In 2016 there were two such (Wisconsin and Virginia) but even so, it's not the hallmark of gerrymandering which San Lumen wants it to be. Other states ARE gerrymandered they just don't happen to be that purple, but they DO affect the House total to the advantage of Republicans.

That's true, I did see quite a few redder or historically redder states with wildly disproportionate vote-to-seat totals, Texas and California in particular are quite nasty...although in California's case it has to do more with a lot of places being won by very close margins.

If a state was very homogenous (D-R-D-R-etc down both sides of every street) it wouldn't be possible to draw districts to get a representative election result. Not-enough gerrymander in a sense. The side that got 51% statewide would get all the seats. It's different geographical distribution of the vote which make fair districting so difficult.

[Farnhamia]

States aren't subject to redistricting?

They're not subject to having their boundaries redrawn every ten years. Redistricting.

As I'm sure you're going to point out, they are subject to having the Electoral College representation changed. It's a rough way of achieving the same end, more equal voting power than if the boundaries and the EC were left unchanged.

State boundaries, no. Redistricting redraws congressional boundaries within each state.

[San Lumen]

I think gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it. But I can’t think of an example where Democrats got the most seats but lost the popular vote.

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

It absolutely is. Democrats won the popular vote for the State Assembly in Wisconsin by ten last year and didn’t get a majority of seats. They won the popular vote for the state legislature in Pennsylvania by ten and by smaller margins in North Carolina and Michigan too. How is is fair of democratic to win the most seats without getting the most votes??

[Shrillland]

That's not gerrymandering. That's a product of the democrats focusing on the big cities that are easy to fund-raise in to the exclusion of all else. States aren't subject to redistricting.

And I will note on the topic of gerrymandering, and dems vers reps; that there are four bodies in our government, only one is subject to gerrymandering, and it is also the only one the dems control.

It absolutely is. Democrats won the popular vote for the State Assembly in Wisconsin by ten last year and didn’t get a majority of seats. They won the popular vote for the state legislature in Pennsylvania by ten and by smaller margins in North Carolina and Michigan too. How is is fair of democratic to win the most seats without getting the most votes??

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

[Farnhamia]

It absolutely is. Democrats won the popular vote for the State Assembly in Wisconsin by ten last year and didn’t get a majority of seats. They won the popular vote for the state legislature in Pennsylvania by ten and by smaller margins in North Carolina and Michigan too. How is is fair of democratic to win the most seats without getting the most votes??

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

The Voting Rights Act? I think rather that you'd have to get every state legislature to change their election laws. The states control how their citizens vote, not the Feds. The VRA just said you can't rig things to exclude people and set up penalties for doing so.

[San Lumen]

It absolutely is. Democrats won the popular vote for the State Assembly in Wisconsin by ten last year and didn’t get a majority of seats. They won the popular vote for the state legislature in Pennsylvania by ten and by smaller margins in North Carolina and Michigan too. How is is fair of democratic to win the most seats without getting the most votes??

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

I’m all in favor of MMP.

[San Lumen]

They're not subject to having their boundaries redrawn every ten years. Redistricting.

As I'm sure you're going to point out, they are subject to having the Electoral College representation changed. It's a rough way of achieving the same end, more equal voting power than if the boundaries and the EC were left unchanged.

State boundaries, no. Redistricting redraws congressional boundaries within each state.

It also redraws state legislature many of which are up for election next year

[Nobel Hobos 2]

State boundaries, no. Redistricting redraws congressional boundaries within each state.

It also redraws state legislature many of which are up for election next year

The Presidential year is the most popular with state governments, yes.
If you want to do some gerrymandering, 2020 is the one you want to win.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It absolutely is. Democrats won the popular vote for the State Assembly in Wisconsin by ten last year and didn’t get a majority of seats. They won the popular vote for the state legislature in Pennsylvania by ten and by smaller margins in North Carolina and Michigan too. How is is fair of democratic to win the most seats without getting the most votes??

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

it's not a drop-in replacement.

Firstly, there are the 7 states with only one Rep. They can't "multi member", results are the same as FPTP
Then there are the 5 states with two Reps. In almost every case these will be 1D-1R election after election.
That's almost a quarter of states with nothing to gain from MMP.

MMP starts to show some benefits when states have 3 Reps, though again third parties are unlikely and there's an incumbency problem: only one seat will flip election to election and the other two are somebody's for life. I suppose you could pass term limit legislation (if it's constitutional) but ... I'm calling another 3 states with not much to gain.

Up around six reps per state, we'd start seeing Libertarians elected, and in California (the state with the most to "gain") there'd be Libertarians, Greens and who knows what.

It might require constitutional amendment, but even worse than that for your plan, States would have to adopt it voluntarily and since it threatens the power of both major parties neither of them will ever do it for you. Maybe Vermont.

[Aclion]

nationwide proportional representation for the house, STV state reps for the senate. STV president.
Done and done.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

The entire point of the electoral college is part of the compromise between the small and large states.


But doing so gives people different voting power based on what sad they have.

I don’t think the founder could have had 50 states. A single state has no power anymore, except for California.

Might be better to get rid of the electoral college, but add an extra step where states are grouped together ?


Like state party’s. ?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

nationwide proportional representation for the house, STV state reps for the senate. STV president.
Done and done.

Nationwide proportional representation requires a constitutional amendment and the states will NEVER do it for you. Single Transferrable Vote I'm not so sure, it's either constitutional or with consent of the states.
Sorry!

[Shrillland]

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

The Voting Rights Act? I think rather that you'd have to get every state legislature to change their election laws. The states control how their citizens vote, not the Feds. The VRA just said you can't rig things to exclude people and set up penalties for doing so.

Yes, and to allow all the states to do that, you have to change the Voting Rights Act. A lot of states in the South and West can't just go to PR/MMP because they are required by the VRA to Gerrymander just enough so that black votes won't be hopelessly diluted. Remember, before the VRA, a lot of those states didn't have congressional districts, all of their Congressfolks were elected at-large to ensure whites would hold all the seats.

[Shrillland]

Well, there is a fairer system available, but we would have to amend the Voting Rights Act to let every state use it. PR/MMP, of course.

it's not a drop-in replacement.

Firstly, there are the 7 states with only one Rep. They can't "multi member", results are the same as FPTP
Then there are the 5 states with two Reps. In almost every case these will be 1D-1R election after election.
That's almost a quarter of states with nothing to gain from MMP.

MMP starts to show some benefits when states have 3 Reps, though again third parties are unlikely and there's an incumbency problem: only one seat will flip election to election and the other two are somebody's for life. I suppose you could pass term limit legislation (if it's constitutional) but ... I'm calling another 3 states with not much to gain.

Up around six reps per state, we'd start seeing Libertarians elected, and in California (the state with the most to "gain") there'd be Libertarians, Greens and who knows what.

It might require constitutional amendment, but even worse than that for your plan, States would have to adopt it voluntarily and since it threatens the power of both major parties neither of them will ever do it for you. Maybe Vermont.

Missouri and Nevada are already considering it and may have referenda up next year.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

it's not a drop-in replacement.

Firstly, there are the 7 states with only one Rep. They can't "multi member", results are the same as FPTP
Then there are the 5 states with two Reps. In almost every case these will be 1D-1R election after election.
That's almost a quarter of states with nothing to gain from MMP.

MMP starts to show some benefits when states have 3 Reps, though again third parties are unlikely and there's an incumbency problem: only one seat will flip election to election and the other two are somebody's for life. I suppose you could pass term limit legislation (if it's constitutional) but ... I'm calling another 3 states with not much to gain.

Up around six reps per state, we'd start seeing Libertarians elected, and in California (the state with the most to "gain") there'd be Libertarians, Greens and who knows what.

It might require constitutional amendment, but even worse than that for your plan, States would have to adopt it voluntarily and since it threatens the power of both major parties neither of them will ever do it for you. Maybe Vermont.

Missouri and Nevada are already considering it and may have referenda up next year.

OK, I'd welcome that. It wouldn't make much difference in NV but Missouri would be interesting.

Edit: In Nevada 2016 Dems won 3 of 4 seats despite a popular vote margin of only 1%. Under MMP the result would have been a fairer 2/2 ... so Nevada would be a viable demonstration too.