All anyone needs to know is that the Republicans aren’t talking about any such plan for Texas or any other of the nicely red states they control.
Yeah, I think that this is a very disconcerting issue, but I mean, I can’t imagine a scenario where the Dem candidate wins the popular vote by 3-5 million votes but still loses the election. Like somebody else indicated, there would be fucking riots in the streets.
On face value, though, the idea itself isn’t so terrible if it were applied equally to all states, yet you don’t see the GOP working overtime to enable such a scheme in firmly red strongholds like Texas or something.
That’s a good point… Something may be done about it by popular demand, but only when there’s an electoral college/popular vote schism two or three times (I can’t see it surviving beyond that). That seems to me the most likely way the general electorate will care enough to prod politicians to actual action.
Idk about other states but here in MD voters get to vote on whether or not they approve of the new districts. Is this true in other states?
There may well be other states where that’s true, but I don’t know of any of them, and certainly Ohio isn’t one.
Despite Mencken’s dictum, I’ll guess even the American people will “smell a rat” when only Obama-voting states change their electoral vote rules. My question is: Will the rat-smelling Republican common Americans approve or disapprove of the ploy?
Trivia note. Mencken’s actual writing differs from the simplified aphorism:
Make sure that the governors and legislatures who attempt such a plan are removed from office in the 2014 elections. This idea seems to only be popular in states where the Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office, yet voted for Obama. So it should be possible to raise enough of a stink to get these people to back off their plans, or get them tossed out of office.
Is there anyone in particular that you think you’re arguing against by pointing out the constitutionality of the proposed changes? Because you look to be the first to bring it up.
Just implementing single transferable vote (STV) would eliminate the “superstar” effect.
What you describe in your second paragraph happened to an extent in Japan prior to their 1994 electoral reform when they had multiple members of the same party competing for votes in the same district.
If they use congressional districts, Congress can at least frustrate the state by giving the state new congressional districts. The Constitution gives the ultimate power to regulate congressional elections to Congress, not that the current Congress is worth a bag of hair.
But a state could counter that by enacting separate presidential electoral districts (which I think some did a long time ago).
More guns.
More like hand-wringing and stern letters to the editor. Make it 30 - 50 million, and THEN you’d have… even more hand-wringing, and very angry letters to the editor.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/17/1459991/rslc-gerrymandering-house/
By way of our good friends at ThinkProgress, Republican leadership bragging about how they subverted the democratic process by way of gerrymandering to create a Republican House majority when, by all rights, they should have lost it.
Truly, an inspiring moment. The Republican Party is the Lance Armstrong of democracy. Winning isn’t the main thing, its the only thing, and they have thrown off any shred of dignity, any pretense of adherence to democratic principles. They aren’t simply admitting it, they are gloating about it.
Dare we hope, Counselor, that we will hear no further pious bleatings about liberal hypocrisy?
I am SO stealing this! 
What, they’ve only got one ball?
I got it in my sig before you did, nyaah nyaah nyaah! 
“The Republican Party is the Lance Armstrong of democracy.”
-elucidator
I like the idea of proportional representation in theory, but it will potentially be unfair if it’s not done on a large scale. Protecting that, though, will be that it would only be an advantage for one party if they can get it done only in the states where they are unlikely to win, which means they will have trouble doing it for those sorts of reasons.
And here’s a simple version of how I might implement it. Let’s use Virginia as an example, which has 11 seats. Basically, every party who can get on the ballot would pick 11 potential representatives and put them in priority order. The first person gets a seat if they win any seats, the second only gets a seat if they win at least two, etc. Then, people just vote for the party. Independents can still get on, they’d just essentially forfeit any votes they just can’t get more than one seat.
This method would have a few advantages. First, congressmen who they would normally gerrymander for could just get listed higher in the priority to have a higher chance of keeping their seat without manipulating the district. Second, it would provide for some interesting strategies because you’d really only be potentially swapping candidates around where the balance point of the vote is, so they may choose to put stronger candidates there to be competing against eachother. Third, and I think most importantly, it would give more representation to politicians from third parties or independents. For instance, a Libertarian candidate may only get a a few percentage votes in any given district, but getting 5-6% across all of Virginia would be enough to get one elected. In larger states you could potentially get several non-major party candidates, like California could easily have Libertarians, Greens, etc. So, ultimately, I think this sort of thing would work really well to better represent the people since now at least those minority voices would be heard and people wouldn’t be gerrymandered out of voting for the party they really want.
I think you could do a similar process for electoral votes too, why not? People in solid red and solid blue states could suddenly become battleground states if the vote balance falls around those break points. In fact, it could add a whole bunch more battle ground states since small movements in several states could mean a large swing in total votes.
I really don’t see much downside, other than the fact that it would require one party to bite the bullet first, so it may never happen.
As someone else pointed out, unless you have Single Transferrable Vote (and the corresponding problem of havnig to assign a preference number to pretty much every candidate, or at least every candidate in your preferred party), this causes problems with votes being divided among a party’s candidates. Perhaps the voters would vote by party rather than by person?
In fact, I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution where it says that members of the House of Representatives must be elected “by district”. It’s in the United States Code (2 USC 2c), but the law can be changed.
IIRC, the one remaining unratified amendment in the Bill of Rights would set a limit on the size of the Hose of between 200 and 6000 (i.e. the population divided by 50,000).
I think they could use an open list system - let party members prioritise their favoured candidates, then use a party list in the regular election.
Since you seemingly wish to frame all political issues, not in terms of what is just, but in terms of what is legal, I am sure your respect for precedent will extend to two SCOTUS cases in which the Court defined invidious redistricting, not as a part of the ‘political thicket’ in which Justice Frankfurter inveighed against judicial entry, but as a justiciable injustice in the system which it is unreasonable to expect the legislature to correct, and which therefore the courts may and should work correction. I refer of course to Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims. A hypothetical court case that challenges a districting which clearly gives the edge to one party and prays for relief in the form of leveling the playing field to provide citizens with districts so composed as to make it possible to elect candidates amenable to the political tastes of the district’s majority, seems to me to be well within that precedent.
Even the Founding Fathers, with their Fondness for capitalizing virtually every Noun in the Constitution, did not see it appropriate to guarantee a Republican form of government. 
BVUUMP. I’d really like some informed opinion on whether the course of action I suggested in post #59 is workable.