Scholarship table
No thanks to the Milennial non-voters, but I think Democrats and Republicans garnered over 98% of the vote nationwide.To hell with compulsory voting, right? Long live partisan histrionics and fostering divisions & hatred amongst the peasantry all the while - the very second the cameras go off - our elected leaders clamor across the aisle to play beer-league softball and hockey together in D.C.
Senate elections are always interesting because you have to go back to six years prior to look at what happened then. This year's was based on the 2012 Presidential election, which meant the Democrats had a lot of territory to defend.In 2020 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 33, which means if the Democrats do well in the Presidential election, the Senate might go blue as well. (Or if Trump wins another term, in 2022 the Republicans will have to defend 21 out of 34. (But many of the 2022 stats look less "flipable" than 2020 does.)
Or if you don't want to do that, instead of having 435 individual House districts, have 145 districts that each elect three members.
A negative impact?Austin, TX is a city of almost 1M people. It is one of the most liberal cities in the US. Yet it is represented by 5 Rs and 1 D due totally to gerrymandering.The negative impact is that the people of a large city have no say in their national representation.In Pennsylvania, over 50% of votes cast for the House were for Democrats. The republicans won 13 out of 18 races STRICTLY BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING. Gerrymandering takes away the rights of citizens to choose who will represent them in Congress
First I've heard of the concept, I'm curious how would this resolve some of the current issues? And practically speaking would it be that each district has 3 reps and all 3 positions are elected each time?
Here: https://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/e569/pols_set5.jpg It's gerrymandered so that the downtown (very blue) is divided among each of four districts that each include a large suburban/rural area that votes very red.
I think it is time to raise the number of Representatives, as the number was last increased more than a century ago.
Not against it, but why? So a representative needs to represent less than 711,000 citizens?
Anti-gerrymandering measures passed yesterday in Michigan, Missouri and someplace else.
Colorado and Utah.
The number of Reps has been increased a number of times through U.S. history as the population has grown, but not since ~1912. It was done, as I understand it, to maintain proportional representation in the House. The larger states, over time, get under represented.Texas, for example, has 1 Rep per ~800K, compared to ~625K for Vermont, ~573K for Wyoming, etc. The numbers are not drastic, but small states already get over representation in the Senate.
I struggle to understand why you think compulsory voting is going to fix this. Getting people who don't care enough to vote to actually do so doesn't seem like it would do anything.
Why are you convinced that when the people who don't vote today are required to vote (in this alternate United States where the First Amendment no longer exists) they're going to take the time to educate themselves about poorly funded - and therefore poorly exposed - third party candidates?
They'll just pick the names they heard or - as has happened in other countries - check the names at the top of the ballot.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
On the contrary.... many non-voters do indeed care
[...]Your first amendment counter is stupid... you really need to stop it. You can compel people to file taxes, you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm, and you can compel people to pay union dues... all of which are perfectly acceptable under the constitution.[...]
you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm -->not speech.
Your first amendment counter is stupid... you really need to stop it. You can compel people to file taxes, you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm, and you can compel people to pay union dues... all of which are perfectly acceptable under the constitution.
I guarantee that if non-voters were a stronghold for Democrats, you and Sultan would be all over compulsory voting. If non-voters were a stronghold for Republicans, Chicos et al would be all over compulsory voting. But neither is... because you know damn well what you don't know... who non-voters are, or who they would support. It's sad that the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is that they don't want anyone else playing in their sandbox.
Not enough apparently.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/21/obama-suggests-making-it-mandatory-to-vote-that-would-change-very-little/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.558a4ff5a024
Benny's point is that compelling a gun owner to register is putting parameters around a 2nd amendment right. Compelling one to vote is also putting a parameter around the 1st admendment but that alone does not render it unacceptable in the eyes of the constitution.