?

Log in

No account? Create an account
freetrav
.::..: ....:.. .: : .::..: .::..:


January 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

The Disenfranchised Majority

The California Literary Review has an article that analyzes why Presidential politics in the US is biased - probably permanently so - toward the Republican party. Mann goes into quite a bit of detail as to the why of the current arrangement; in an unposted draft of a LJ entry from some time after the 2000 election, I'd started to go into the detailed mechanics of the arrangement - the how of the Republican advantage - and was waiting for an opportunity to massage census data to finish up the entry.  I'm still "waiting".Someday, you'll see my analysis here - if I'm lucky, it'll be in the run-up to the 2008 election.

Edit: corrected the URL

Comments
(Anonymous)

You have a typo in the url, it should be www no ww for the subdomain.

Thanks; corrected.

Thanks.

This is something I've had a strong opinion about, but neither time, temperament, nor sufficient clue-edness to do the academic research.

Actually, things would be a lot more even if we kept the electoral college and just repealed the amendment that set a limit on the number of members in the house of representatives.

And going back to one representative per 20,000 or 30,000 people would have them back to being more in touch with the people they supposedlu represent.

Of course, that'd also mean we'd have 10,000 or so members of the House, but other nations manage that sort of thing.

And the electoral college imbalance would *definitely* go away.

Alas, making that change is *not* in the interest of current House members. :-(

I crunched some numbers, based on the Census Bureau's spreadsheet with the 2000 figures on it, and removing the cap on the size of the House wouldn't actually make much difference - the bias would still be there, though it would be somewhat smaller. The linked article has a map at the top, representing the distribution of states that each candidate won in 2004. If you use the adjusted representation for the House that I crunched (which gave a House of 569 members, instead of 435), Bush still wins the College, but by only 52% instead of the 57% that he got with the present College.

I haven't tried working it on the basis of 1:30,000, but I suspect that it wouldn't make much of a difference, except to multiply the number of electoral votes by ten across the board.

Check Article I section 2 of the Constitution. It was one representative for every 30,000 people.

Given that the current US population is around 300,000,000 that gives around 10,000 representative. That'd *totally* swamp the senatorial portion of the electoral vote, which is what distorts things.

Given that there are current only 435 representatives, thats a seventy-fold increase. And what's more important, it'd change the *distribution* of the votes.

Hell, some of the larger cities would have almost as many representatives as the entire House now. (435 * 30k = 13M)