OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[Balgus]

apsuman:
How many Representatives do you think would be a good number?

i am not the one that determins that. Any number is a good fit if it is uniform. But it is not. Sinec 1911, the number of representatives have remained stagnant, but the population of certain states grow, and rapidly for some. California for one is grossly underrepresented because of this. WHile Odaho is overrepresented because the states retain their original number of representatives from that time.

I read somewhere that if the house followed that same number of voters:reps ratio, we would have like 850 representatives in office.

Of course I am not saying that that is called for. 1000 people bickering baout laws would be a hassle, and hell to pass any laws. But I am saying that it is called teh "house of representatives" and thusly shoudl reflect the population distribution of the States.

EX- (not actual percentages- just for argument sake) Montana has grown 10% in the last 100 years, should it retain all it's representatives the way California does, which has grown over 200%?

But I am just bitter cause the republicans now have control over the house and the senate.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

But this isn't exactly fair either to the states with fast growing populations. The reason that The House has had 435 representatives for the last 100 years or so is because the house is at full capacity, and cannot fit anymore chairs in without remodeling. The gov't doesn't see it fit to tear down a wall and build a bigger room so they have been readjusting boundaries and county lines to fit.

Kinda sad, isn't?

edit:# of rep in house and years

But the states that are growing fast are only doing so because people are moving there from other states. Granted, in California, those might be Mexican states, but most of the people moving from Mexico can't vote anyways. Florida, however, is growing because a lot of New Yorkers move there to retire, which is reflected in the fact that New York has lost electoral votes while Florida has gained them.

I don't think we necessarily need to keep increasing the size of the House, as long as the proportions work out right.

 

[Balgus]

meepo:
But the states that are growing fast are only doing so because people are moving there from other states. Granted, in California, those might be Mexican states, but most of the people moving from Mexico can't vote anyways. Florida, however, is growing because a lot of New Yorkers move there to retire, which is reflected in the fact that New York has lost electoral votes while Florida has gained them.

So what happens when (in the case of CA) the people are then registered to vote? Granted there is a significant portion that choose not to (or never become citizens) there is a huge number that do become citizens and register. No other state has lost votes, so CA can't gain anymore.

This is not just in CA, but New York, Philadelphia, Dallas and other major cities are huge places for immigrants to come to start a new life. They hope to become citizens (and will). Where will their representation come form?

 

[apsuman]

i am not the one that determins that. Any number is a good fit if it is uniform. But it is not. Sinec 1911, the number of representatives have remained stagnant, but the population of certain states grow, and rapidly for some. California for one is grossly underrepresented because of this. WHile Odaho is overrepresented because the states retain their original number of representatives from that time.

I read somewhere that if the house followed that same number of voters:reps ratio, we would have like 850 representatives in office.

Of course I am not saying that that is called for. 1000 people bickering baout laws would be a hassle, and hell to pass any laws. But I am saying that it is called teh "house of representatives" and thusly shoudl reflect the population distribution of the States.

EX- (not actual percentages- just for argument sake) Montana has grown 10% in the last 100 years, should it retain all it's representatives the way California does, which has grown over 200%?

But I am just bitter cause the republicans now have control over the house and the senate.

I am confused. Every state has to have at least one representative. States like South Dakota (for example) only have one representative. California has 524. The number of representatives grows and shrinks due to relative populations. That's the whole reason for the census.

If a bunch of people move from say Ohio to California, then Ohio would lose X representatives and California would gain X representatives.

South Dakota's population could double by 2010 and they could find that they still do not have any more congressmen after reapportionment.

g!

 

[drothgery]

US Pop is estimated to be ~284 million. CA is estimated to be ~34 million; it's a little less than 12% of the population.

There are 435 Representitives. 53 of them (a little over 12%) represent districts in California. How is this disproportionate?

One might argue that one representitive for ~650,000 people is a bit high (and I'd agree), but if you doubled the number of representives, almost every single-representitve state would get two.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I do want to address a topic that keeps coming up.

I've said this before but it bears repeating.

No democratic government representing a wide and disparate region is going to remain stable if it uses a 'one man = one vote' model to create its government. Yes, I am aware that the votes of the Californians are certainly underrepresented (though not so under represented as some would make them out to be). Yes, I'm aware that the people of Wyoming and Idaho by virtue of thier population alone don't deserve a Senator and but 1 or 2 representatives to Congress. Yes, I am aware that this means that the minority regions are given undo voice in the government.

So what?

Is the alternative better?

Suppose we decided, "You know, this whole Electoral College, Senatorial, Federalist Republic thing is anti-Democratic." Suppose we do decide to take away the Senators of Idaho and Wyoming, because a population of just 1,000,000 people doesn't deserve such influence over the affairs of 50 or 100 million. What do you think happens then? You think that the high population, urban centers of power feel a little under represented right now, you just wait until some little corner of the US thinks that they have no voice in government and you see what happens. You think that a nation with opinions and geography as diverse as New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, New Hampshire, Missippi, Texas, California, North Dakota, Iowa, Alaska, and Hawaii is going to hold together as a nation if all the little states loose thier voice? I mean, there is already resentment in rural regions that people in NY and LA seem to think that the whole of the US is NY and LA and seem to think that the culture of NY and LA ought to have the right to set the culture of the rest of the US. You just wait until you start taking away what voice they feel they do have.

Yes, I do think that the US is becoming polarized and bitterly divided along rural/urban lines, but I don't think restructuring the electoral system is the solution to that.

Last night I heard a commentator say that what many people failed to understand is that the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate in New York had alot more in common with each other than either had with either candidate in someplace like Georgia or Arkansas. I thought that was very wise.

 

[apsuman]

This is not just in CA, but New York, Philadelphia, Dallas and other major cities are huge places for immigrants to come to start a new life. They hope to become citizens (and will). Where will their representation come form?

Representation is determined on census not on registered voters.

Every ten years the census determines the number of people living in the United States. Take 435 and divide by that number will get you the number of people per representative. So 300 million divied by 435 is about 690 thousand people per representiative. In states with less than that population, like South Dakota, they get a minimum of one representative. They can not have less than one. The other states get roughly one representative per 700 thousand population. The state legislatures draw up the districts for the representatives.

So although there is a fixed number of seats, if a state grows more relative to the other states, then those other states will get fewer representatives and the faster growing state will get more.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I have a question. I have tried (not recently) to find an answer to this question. What is the difference between the head of government and the head of state?

In the US, the President is both. In the UK, the Queen is the head of state and the PM is the head of government, right?

Does a head of state do anything?

Here in Germany, the head of government is the Chancellor, while the head of state is the president.

The Chancellor sets the policies, picks the ministers, and generally runs the government, with all the dirty politics this implies.

The German President signs the laws and appoints the government. Essentially, this means that he has veto powers - but these are only exercised in the rarest of circumstances. In general, the President stays in the background, aways from daily politics, and serves as some kind of "moral guardian" of the nation. The real power is with the Chancellor, and everyone knows it.

(now my question) So, in parliamentary governments where a failed vote results in a dissolved government and new elections or in a new coalition, how does the rapidly shifting (yearly?) of government ministers effect government policy?

I read that after his re-election the German PM said that his new (coalition) government was so weak that he thought he would have to dissolve it in a year and have new elections. (As an American I can not understand that he was so unconcerned about this.) So the PM gets to appoint a new Foreign Minister from a different party, but he is only going to have the job for 9 months. How much impact can the Foreign Minister have on governemtn policy? Does he do something other than be our equivalent Secretary of State?

I doubt that Schroeder himself said that - I think opposition politicians were making that comment. Schroeder himself fully intends to hang on until the next regular election.

In general, the ministers are "officially" appointed for the entire duration of the government's term - four years in Germany, unless the government is dissolved early.

However, the Chancellor can kick out ministers with whom he is disappointed - perhaps they didn't perform too well (or he just needs a scapegoat), or they were involved in one scandal too many. In this case, he can replace him or her with a new one. This happened rather frequently during the last four years...

One other thing should be mentioned here - the government can only get into power if it gets voted in by a majority of the German parliament. This is why coalition governments are usually necessary - no single party normally gets enough votes to form a majority. And likewise, new laws can only be passed if a majority of all representatives vote for it.

But right now, the majority of the ruling German government is rather slim - if a few representatives of the government parties were to switch allegiance, the majority might vanish altogether. And this is what the opposition is hoping for, naturally...

(Are you sure that the "9 months" comment wasn't made by the PM of Bavaria, who was the opposition's candidate for chancellor in the last election?)

 

[Storm Raven]

i am not the one that determins that. Any number is a good fit if it is uniform. But it is not. Sinec 1911, the number of representatives have remained stagnant, but the population of certain states grow, and rapidly for some. California for one is grossly underrepresented because of this. WHile Odaho is overrepresented because the states retain their original number of representatives from that time.

You are mistaken. Representatives are reapportioned according to population with every census (taken once every ten years). While the number of members of the House of representatives is fixed at 435, the number of constituents they represent is not.

In other words, California has many more representatives than it did in 1911. Many other States have fewer representatives than they did at that time.

Of course I am not saying that that is called for. 1000 people bickering baout laws would be a hassle, and hell to pass any laws. But I am saying that it is called teh "house of representatives" and thusly should reflect the population distribution of the States.

Given that the allocation of representatives is reapportioned with every census to reflect population distributions in just this manner, you have no cause to complain.

But I am just bitter cause the republicans now have control over the house and the senate.

You are also probably bitter because you are misinformed about the nature of how seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The whole point of a republican (small r) government is to push extremist views to the margins of politics. I don't like systems that try to increase the influence of minor parties.

I dunno. We have four to six parties represented in the German Bundestag (depending on how you count them), and all except for one are trying so hard to get into the "center" that it gets real crowded there (and the one party that didn't bombed spectacularily in the elections)...

If you display any kind of extremism in German politics these days, you won't get far. And this despite the fact that coalition governments are the norm rather than the exception.