And furthermore, they don’t need district representation since they’re all underage 
Congressional districts are not calculated on the basis of voters but of population. Those unable to vote are still represented by them. (Ask any Congressman how important it is to reply to a letter from a kid.)
And that would include legally resident noncitizen immigrants – and also undocumented immigrants, if the Census can determine their presence in a district statistically. That doesn’t mean they can vote; but confusion on this point might add fuel to the “illegal aliens voting” canard, as well as to the “Obama fixing the Census” canard. Of course, if you raise a fuss over this – it means you’re arguing your state should have fewer seats in Congress, which is hard to sell politically.
Well, yes, that did enter my mind, but disinformation was required in order for the joke to work. Which it didn’t really, but I get diarrhea of the fingers sometimes.
Update: Apparently not all Democrats are in favor of 5 & 6 – because they might mean an end to “majority-minority” districts carefully crafted to include, say, all the African-American nieghborhoods in a county (such districts, BTW, often look really weird on the map).
For example, look at Tom DeLay’s old district in Texas, District 33.
Heinlein once suggested that we should assign voters to districts alphabetically, or by birthday. Thus everyone born from Jan 1 through Feb 13 would be in District 1, Feb 14 - March 28 in District 2, etc. That way, every district would be of absolutely equal size (aside from a tiny rounding error), ensuring one person, one vote. As he put it, “surely where a person lives is the least important thing about them”.
At the time he wrote it, this proposal would have been unwieldy, but today, with databases and the Internet, it could work.
But then, the character who proposed that (I don’t think Heinlein ever suggested something like that directly, and he didn’t necessarily agree with all of his characters) proposed it precisely because it was unwieldy: He was ideologically opposed to all forms of government, and was trying to hamstring it.
An interesting but highly questionable proposition. After all, society is not only an atomistic soup of individuals. Everyone is part of some local community or other, and communities as communities do have their own very real economic and political interests.
OTOH, most people also are part of non-geographical groupings or “communities” – social classes, occupational sectors, ethnic identities, religious identities – that have their own interests.
But that would NOT ensure equal sized Districts – births do not occur uniformly throughout the year,
Births are higher on weekdays than weekends (probably because the majority of induced births are done on a weekday). And many holidays have fewer births, like Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, and especially Thanksgiving & Christmas. (Christmas has the fewest births of any day of the year.) However, there is an increase in births in August & September – about 9 months after Thanksgiving & Christmas (Yule time joy, indeed!)
I don’t think that’s accurate at all. Where a person chooses to live is quite significant. (And a house purchase is the biggest purchase most people make in their life.)
I can tell you a lot of things about a person, based on where they live, with a high probability of being accurate. Marketing experts can tell you even more. For this topic specifically:
- rural = Republican
- urban = Democrat
- suburban = depends. The newer, richer, or farther from the central city the suburb is, the more Republican the average resident is.
Keep the district lines permanent, force the people to relocate as needed.
Nobody says we have to set the months up equally. Jan-Feb is D1. August could be D5 and September D6.
But which years? It varies over different years, too. And what happens when people move in, with different birthdays? The districts would become non-equal, just the same as current districts.
Such a system is effectively electing all the positions “at-large” – that is a known way to prevent representation of minorities. And since the voters are spread out over the whole state, instead of being concentrated in a geographic district, candidates have to spend more money to reach them, via TV or radio ads, wider mailings, etc. – so this favors rich candidates (or incumbents). Having Districts that dis-enfranchise minority views, and favor incumbents – wasn’t that the situation of the original Gerry-mandering?
Florida has 25 seats in the House. Each party in the state can place up to 25 candidates for the federal House on the ballot. Voters in Florida pick one of the 50+ candidates on the ballot as their representative. The top 25 voter-getters win.
Gerrymandering–both its cost and injustice–would be gone. More third-party candidates would have a shot at Congress (e.g. the Green party would likely field one or two candidates and try a statewide strategy). Composition of Congress would more closely match the electorate. Voters would have a broader array of choice and could apply a wider range of criteria: Al may favor expanded federal money for a local employer, Betty may be more concerned about federal abortion rights, Chuck wants a minority representative…and out of 50+ candidates they have a better menu.
Logisitcally the election would be more complicated. Ballots would be longer, and I’ve heard enough stories about ballot issues to make me suspicious. Local polls would have to report totals for a much larger slate of candidates, so it most likely would require electronic reporting. And the chances of a recount/dispute (between the 25th and 26th finisher) seems more likely. But these hardly seem like good reasons to scuttle the idea outright, given the potential benefits.
I really don’t understand why every election has to be an either-or choice. Oh wait, yes I do (PDF).
Has there been any polling on these two ballot measures? I can’t seem to find any polls on Amendment 5 or 6 on Ballotpedia or by googling.
I’m with CJJ*. Single non-transferable vote would allow self-sorting, & no one can claim it’s too complex.
(Though I think open list would be better, technically.)
Once again. This is curious. There seem to be poll results out there on practically everything else, including other Florida ballot measures.
Polls are done only if someone will pay for them. Ballot measures often don’t want to spend the money for polling. News media will pay for polls on major races, and then publicize the results.
Other polls, paid for by candidates or ballot measure campaigns, get publicized only if the people who paid for it believe publicizing the results will help their campaign.
Both measures passed! By 62%! That’s actually a squeaker, an amendment now needs 60% to pass.