Proportional Allocation of Eelectoral Votes

[M14 Shooter]

We are talking about electors for the presidency. This is a national election issue and it is just stupid to try to pretend that it only concerns California voters.

This is a STATE election that MAY affect a national office.
In this, it is NO different than an election for a senator or a congressman.

Let's look at the map.

Yes, lets
2004, current law:
Bush 286 Kerry 252
2004 CA proportional:
Bush 311 Kerry 227
2004 all proportional:
Bush 277 Kerry 261

Nonetheless, this would have been a beat down by Kerry, made all the more surprising by the fact that Bush won the popular vote.

Obviously not.

If the winner doesn't reflect the will of the people, that is bad.

Which is exactly why electoral votes should be allocated proportionally to the votes cast by the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have to go, as I have an engagement to get to. However, there is one more reason that this might be a bad idea. It will prompt even greater attempts to gerrymander Congressional districts. If you can draw boundaries to capture as much of the opposition in the fewest number of districts, then you can increase your chances of winning at the State, Congressional and (now) Presidential levels.

No.
The EV total for a state isnt affected by gerrymandering, nor is the proportion of the total vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, even from a California perspective, this doesn't advance the will of the people of California. That majority of the people of the state of California generally vote Democratic in presidential elections (and every time they vote Republican, they are voting with the winning person).

Well, if CA had just one vote, then I woud agree.

But, it has 55. Splitting that 55 -necessarily- better represents the will of the people of CA than allocating it as a block, as th epeople that voted for the minority candidate have their votes represented in the EC.

 

[indago]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

Congressman Michael R. Turner, Chairman

OVERSIGHT HEARING

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL R. TURNER, CHAIRMAN

Hearing topic: “Counting the Vote: Should Only US citizens Be Included In Apportioning Our
Elected Representatives?”

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 10:00 am

Room 2247 Rayburn House Office Building

Welcome to the Subcommittee’s oversight hearing entitled, “Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included In Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?”

We are here today to discuss a proposed amendment to the Constitution that will change how the Census Bureau determines the enumeration for the purposes of apportioning the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, “Representatives of the House shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” In other words, all individuals residing in the United States on Census Day, except for non-taxed Indians, must be enumerated to determine the apportionment base.

The issue of whether non-citizens should be included in the apportionment base has received considerable congressional attention in the past. In 1940, for example, Representative Celler of New York said on the floor of the House, “The Constitution says that all persons shall be counted. I cannot quarrel with the founding fathers. They said that all should be counted . . . The only way we can exclude [anyone] would be to pass a constitutional amendment.”

Most legal scholars agree with the view of Representative Celler that any attempt to exclude non-citizens from enumeration must be accomplished by a constitutional amendment. That is what Representative Candice Miller has proposed to do by introducing House Joint Resolution 53. This measure is a straightforward proposal to distinguish citizens of the United States from the total population for purposes of determining the apportionment base. I am willing to wager that many – if not most – Americans think this is exactly how it is done today and would be shocked to learn that non-citizens, especially those in the country illegally, have an impact on apportioning the membership of the House of Representatives.

Regardless of possible popular belief, there may be some very compelling reasons why the Framers used the word “persons” instead of the word “citizens” or “voters” when they crafted the Fourteenth Amendment. The primary question before us here today is: If H.J. Res. 53 is adopted by Congress and ratified by the states, how would things be different?

We have several witnesses today that may provide the Subcommittee some insight into what the political landscape would have looked like in the past if the census excluded non-citizens and what it may look like after the 2010 Census if H.J. Res. 53 is adopted. I think you will find this testimony most interesting.

This hearing has been structured in such a way that the Subcommittee will first hear from Congresswoman Miller so that she may describe her proposal.

The Subcommittee will then hear from a second panel comprised of two esteemed demographers, Clark Bensen, a consultant, and publisher from the Polidata Company and Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. Joining these two will be Lawrence Gonzalez representing the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Finally on our third panel we will hear from several legal and academic scholars including the former Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Ken Prewitt. Joining Dr. Prewitt will be James Gimpel, Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland; Johnny Killian, Senior Specialist in Constitutional Law in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service; Andrew Spiropoulos, Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, and Nina Perales, Southwestern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

With that, my colleagues on the Subcommittee and I welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

 

[Larkinn]

That's up to the states, themselves.
The question HERE is if CA should adpot this.

And we decided to address other questions as well, since they are relevant and pertinent.

 

[indago]

Excerpts from testimony of Representative Candice Miller before committee:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
...even if you broke the laws of our nation to come here, we give you as much representation to impact our laws as any legal American. So for all practical purposes, when we are voting in Congress about issues like national security, border security or illegal immigration, we allow illegal immigrants to influence the outcome.

...The 10th District of Michigan, which I am proud to represent in this House, according to the 2000 Census is home to 662,510 individuals. Of those 645,888 are citizens according the Census estimates, and 16,622 non-citizens. So, according to the Census Bureau 97% of the residents of my district are American citizens, 3% are not.

The entire state of Montana has just one congressional district. It has a total population of 902,195 individuals. 895,281 of those are citizens, and 6,914 are non-citizens. Over 99% of the people in Montana are citizens, and less than 1% are not.

Now let us consider the 31st District of California. According to the Census, this district is home to 639,248 individuals.

Only 377,191 are citizens and 262,057 are non-citizens. This means that about 60% are citizens and that over 40% of the residents in this district are not American citizens.

This means my district is home to 268,697 more Americans than the 31st District of California. And it means that the state of Montana is home to an astounding 518,090 more Americans than is California 31.

Yet all 3 examples have the same vote in Congress.

Another effect of these Congressional seats shifting to states with larger non-citizen populations is that recipient states have a larger voice in Congress, and throughout the entire federal government. Having an inflated population, and thus a greater number of representatives in this House, opens doors for increased federal funding for those states. In a very twisted way, it also gives states an incentive – that may or may not be acted upon – to create a situation where illegal immigration is tolerated, accepted or even encouraged.

If only citizens had been counted for purposes of re-apportionment, Congressional Research Service estimates show it would have had an impact on how nine congressional seats were allocated. The state of California, home to an estimated 5.4 million non-citizens, would have been allocated six fewer seats in the House of Representatives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[pegwinn]

I'm sorry, I must disagree. Using Jillian as an example, her vote for POTUS doesn't count because she claims to live in one of the non-binding states. How can her vote be considered to count if the electors are not legally bound to honor it.

You are confusing what might happen with what does happen. Might it not count? Yes. In reality, does it count? yes. Is that necessarily what must happen legally? No. In reality is that what happens almost every time? Yes. Her vote counts because regardless of legality electors DO honor it. I'm not legally bound to go to the dry cleaners down the street as opposed to across town, but yet it matters very much to them that I go to them. The money they recieve is real, just as the electoral votes that the candidates recieve, as a direct result of Jillians vote is real.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism to prevent it. I don't think it should be prevented. You claim you are against mob rule, well this is a defence against that. If the mob majority picks Hitler for president, the electorors has an option not to choose them.

Good twist around. I am for a legally bound proportional EC. This is one of the very very few times I do not defer to "reality" because the discussion is philosophical in nature. This is a case of something that "can happen" and has happened on a smaller scale in the past. The other reality is that only the votes cast by the electors count according to the Constitution.

I would tend to agree. But it is within the realm of possibility for the electors to decide to say "hell wit dat" and go on their own. "Thus the need......"

And there are clear and compelling reasons to allow them the freedom of their choice, especially considering the extremely rare circumstances that they will vote for anyone other than their political party.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I'm sorry, I must disagree. The "value" of the vote is a math issue. It isn't a reality issue. The reality is that smaller states don't have the leverage to make a difference.

It is a math issue, but you must realize that my interest in choosing a presidential candidate is not only based on state interests, but on personal interests. I'm not voting for a president based on how much he will benefit my state, I'm voting on how much he will benefit me. Thus, as I said, it doesn't matter what people down the street think.

Now the tables have turned. I am the one arguing reality and your case is abstract.

How so?

Certainly you realize how Wyoming is grossly over-represented in the Senate, yes? 1 vote per 200k, while my state gets 1 vote per 15 mil (or something like that).

As for the house, its basically the same as the EC....they get more votes per person than NY, or any other state, does.

The Senate is not meant to represent you. It is intended to represent the state. Check out the thread I referred Jillian to in an earlier post. The only way your second point makes any sense is at the very bottom of the scale. I don't know the population thresholds required to get another rep.

I'm sorry, I must disagree but only mildly. The EC is part and parcel of our Republic/Federalist form of government

It is part and parcel of OUR form of government...not of a republic government per se. We decided to do it because we are a confederation of states, there is nothing inherently republic about it. And as we become more federalized and communication becomes more global and national there is less and less of a reason to allow citizens of Wyoming disproportionate power over other citizens.

I am willing to change it to OUR government if it will furhter the conversation. I'm afraid that you will have to demonstrate in either a historical or real world example of the "citizens of Wyoming disproportionate power over other citizens." It sounds like you are no longer discussing the EC.

It's all about checks and balances. BTW, you do know that the only election we were meant to vote in originally was for the House right?

The only check/balance the EC is, is a check against the mob which you want to get rid of. Otherwise its just a way of giving small states more power than they should have. There is reason to give them power in the senate/house, but voting for the presidency? No reason at all.

And no, we were always meant to vote for the president. There was just a level in between them. Talk theoretics all you want, but the fact is that electors being able to choose differently than their state has NEVER affected the outcome of a presidential election.

I never said to get rid of the EC. And, here you say that there is a reason.... and earlier it was "grossly over.... etc".

I bolded a part above so to address here without the quote boxes getting in the way. You are mistaken. Rather than type and then debate and then source. I will just cut/paste/source

"The Constitution specifies that the president and vice president be chosen through the votes cast by electors chosen by the states, rather than by a direct popular vote. At first, some electors were chosen by state legislatures, but by 1836 all states but South Carolina chose electors through a statewide popular vote. (S.C. followed suit in 1860.) Today, all states but Maine and Nebraska have a winner-take-all system in which all of a given state's electors vote for the winner of that state's popular vote." Source

In short, we were not meant to. It evolved that way state-by-state, not by Federal or constitutional mandate.

It's been fun, have a good weekend.

 

[Larkinn]

Good twist around. I am for a legally bound proportional EC. This is one of the very very few times I do not defer to "reality" because the discussion is philosophical in nature. This is a case of something that "can happen" and has happened on a smaller scale in the past. The other reality is that only the votes cast by the electors count according to the Constitution.

I think we agree that it is incredbly unlikely to happen. However, since you see no need for a backup plan if the population decides to elect Hitler jr, we disagree on whether there are reasons for them to be bound. In essence you have more faith in the peoples wisdom than I do.

By the way...making it illegal to do otherwise probably won't do much. So you'll send a few people to jail...that won't change the election.

Now the tables have turned. I am the one arguing reality and your case is abstract.

Not at all. My case is exactly as concrete as yours is, we are just using different groups. You are grouping them based on a per state basis, and I am doing it on an individual basis.

The Senate is not meant to represent you. It is intended to represent the state. Check out the thread I referred Jillian to in an earlier post. The only way your second point makes any sense is at the very bottom of the scale. I don't know the population thresholds required to get another rep.

The state is made up of its individual parts, i.e. the population. Therefore the Senate is representing both me as an individual and the state. There isn't some abstract state interest that is different than the peoples interests.

I am willing to change it to OUR government if it will furhter the conversation. I'm afraid that you will have to demonstrate in either a historical or real world example of the "citizens of Wyoming disproportionate power over other citizens." It sounds like you are no longer discussing the EC.

Wyoming gets two votes just as NY gets 2 votes in the Senate. That is extremely disproportionate. However, its disproportionate even in the House and the EC. Someone did the numbers a while back and each rep in Wyoming represents significantly less people than each rep in NY.

I never said to get rid of the EC. And, here you say that there is a reason.... and earlier it was "grossly over.... etc".

No...but you want to get rid of the only check that the EC has...and that is the check against mob mentality. There is a reason for the EC..and it is does skew the proportionality of states. Few things in this world are all good, and if they were we wouldn't be arguing about them. Its a balancing test...I recognize fully there are reasons for the EC and for keeping the proportionality of it, but I don't think that those over-rule my objections.

Just to be clear...there are two parts to the EC. The disproportionality of it, and that it allows electors to choose who is president. I dislike the first and like the second.

In short, we were not meant to. It evolved that way state-by-state, not by Federal or constitutional mandate.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

 

[pegwinn]

The state is made up of its individual parts, i.e. the population. Therefore the Senate is representing both me as an individual and the state. There isn't some abstract state interest that is different than the peoples interests.

Wyoming gets two votes just as NY gets 2 votes in the Senate. That is extremely disproportionate. However, its disproportionate even in the House and the EC. Someone did the numbers a while back and each rep in Wyoming represents significantly less people than each rep in NY.

You are correct that there wasn't an abstract interest, there was a specific, concrete interest. The Senate was intended to be voice of the state legislatures. That is why originally the senate was appointed vice elected. Like I said, check out that thread I mentioned. I think the title was something to the effect of not allowing senators to run for president. A discussion of the 17th Amendment was in there near the front.

Anyway, the same two votes ensures that each state as an entity is equal. Thus no disproportionate voting.

ON the house side, I am sorry but Wyoming only has one rep. I don't imagine you wish to disenfranchise the citizens in and of that state. Your advantage is that with your population any advantage they have with a pol/citizen ratio is offset by sheer numbers. See the Tanks analogy.

Hasta la c'ya