Millennial Non-Voters

[WarriorDad]

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.

Are you asking non voters to be compelled to vote for one of the two parties?  Does that mean out in California where they had an all Democrat Senate race, it will be forced to have a candidate from each?  How do you know if these non voters will simply sign their ballot or check in, and leave everything blank, or are you requiring people to vote for people they do not agree with? 

Aside from the fact your idea is unconstitutional, what are you demanding?

[WarriorDad]

Gerrymander.  Had to share this after walking in on my wife watching the girls. My term for her watching the View.   Joy Behar is ranting that the Republicans expanded their lead in the Senate due to gerrymandering.   At that point I walked away. The stupid box (TV) continues unabated.

[GGGG]

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.)

[MU82]

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.)

Very good point, Sultan. Tiny was fortunate that Dem senators had to play defense this year in heavily red states that Tiny won handily 2 years ago. In 2020, the opposite will be true.

I never make predictions regarding this stuff. All I said this year is that if the Dems got out the vote decently, they would flip the House -- simply because of math -- but wouldn't win the Senate. It wasn't a bold prediction, it was logical. If they didn't get out the vote, both houses of Congress would stay in GOP control. Mostly, I said: "We'll see."

As for 2020, I'll say similar. Two more years of Tiny is simply going to stoke more hate, fear and anger. He won the presidency by about 78K combined votes over three states - Pa, Wis and Mich, and all three states seemed to go back blue-ish this year. If the Dems field a candidate with fewer skeletons and flaws than the one from 2016 (which seems likely) and if they are energized to vote at anywhere near the enthusiasm level of the "Obama coalition" years, they will win the presidency and probably both houses of Congress. Again, it's simple math.

Year after year, the country is getting less and less white-male-y. I mean, look at who won elections this cycle. This is not a trend, it's simply the evolution of our democratic republic.

[mu03eng]

Or if you don't want to do that, instead of having 435 individual House districts, have 145 districts that each elect three members.

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?

[Billy Hoyle]

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

Yep, Austin is the pefrect example. Split into 6 districts, one running nearly 200 miles to Houston.

In North Carolina in 2014, the Democrats received 1.3 million more votes than GOP candidates yet only won 4 of 13 seats.  Gerrymandering was always bad (regardless of the party in charge) but using sophisticated computer software to draw the districts to a party's advantage made it every worse. I'm hopeful that the referendums that were passed in states like MI and CO to require a non-partisan commission to draw the maps will balance things out. The fact the Democrats won control of the House under such circumstances points to a successful strategy.

[Babybluejeans]

Both sides absolutely have a history of engaging in gerrymandering. My Republican party, as the party in power in many states across the last decade, have unfortunately gerrymandered beyond the limits of normal political behavior, which has given some short term benefits to our side but there will likely be long-term costs. E.g., I suspect now that the other side has substantially more state power after last night, they will establish more fair boundaries, which will have the effect of benefiting them. The results should bear themselves out in 2022, so stay tuned.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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?

I am curious about the same thing.  I'm not clear what impact this change would have or how it results in better representation.

I think it is time to raise the number of Representatives, as the number was last increased more than a century ago.

[mu03eng]

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.

It's definitely gerrymandered, but I don't think it's as significantly gerrymandered as implied. Each district has to have as close to 711,000 voting citizens in it as possible while taking into to consideration convenience and avoiding any blatant demographic pooling.

The population of the 5 districts is then approximately 3,555,000 with Austin making up 1,000,000 of that. If I assume Austin is a 90/10 split between D/R and that the outlying areas are an 20/80 split between D/R that means in the 5 districts there are roughly 1,308,800 Dems and 2,246200 Repubs.

If you maximize the number of Dem districts (at least 370,000 Ds in a district) the max you can come up with is 3 out of 5 and the 2 other districts would be heavily Repub (leaving 99,400 Dems in each of the remaining 2 districts). If you maximize for the most competitive districts(355,500 of each party in a district) you get 3 competitive districts and 2 districts that are a 20/80 split between D/R. All of this ignores the demographic mix and/or convenience elements (though I'd say the current map is really light on "convenience" for Austin voters)

Bottom line, I think gerrymandering there has resulted in a net "steal" of 1 district for Repubs from Dems....which isn't inconsequential but it also isn't some sort of cataclysm either. This is where policy and pooling matter....you have to find ways to reduce the ratio in the outlying areas by policy positions or distribute population better so it's not pooled.

Obviously this is all illustrative and isn't intended to say gerrymandering isn't an issue but that it isn't some sort of grand cause of the issues in the body politic currently.

[mu03eng]

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?

[GGGG]

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?

A primary and general election would be held every two years, with the top three in the general election heading to Congress.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Not against it, but why? So a representative needs to represent less than 711,000 citizens?

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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Anti-gerrymandering measures passed yesterday in Michigan, Missouri and someplace else.

[Pakuni]

Anti-gerrymandering measures passed yesterday in Michigan, Missouri and someplace else.

Colorado and Utah.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Colorado and Utah.

Thanks!

[mu03eng]

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.

Makes sense to me. What has to happen to actually implement that change?

[Benny B]

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.

On the contrary.... many non-voters do indeed care but do not vote because they don't support either the D or R candidates.

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?

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.

They'll just pick the names they heard or - as has happened in other countries - check the names at the top of the ballot.

Easy.  Randomize the names at the top of the ballot.

[GGGG]

On the contrary.... many non-voters do indeed care

Not enough apparently.

[jficke13]

[...]

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.

[...]

Okay, organize an amendment initiative that would allow for compelled speech in the event of compulsory voting. You may think that the undisputed state of the law is stupid, but that doesn't change the state of the law.

you can compel people to file taxes --> not speech.

you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm -->not speech.

and you can compel people to pay union dues --> but precedent suggests you can't penalize them for demanding their share of union dues not be used for political activism... which means that compulsory union dues are... wait for it... not speech.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Opt out voting instead of opt in. Every person who is eligible on their 18th birthday is automatically registered to vote.

[mu03eng]

you can compel people to be licensed to own/possess a firearm -->not speech.

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

Your counter - as well as your insistence that mandatory voting is possible right now - displays a severe ignorance of the Constitution.

1. The government compels people to file taxes under the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which has been upheld on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
2. How is a license to own a gun at all similar to mandatory voting.
3. The Supreme Court earlier this year in Janus v. AFSCME said people can't be compelled to pay union dues (and, in fact, nobody is compelled to work in a union shop). Keep up.

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.

What's sad is you can't make an actual argument here to defend your position, so you make up this kind of stuff.
Again, please explain why you believe making disinterested people vote would lead to a surge in third-party voting. Otherwise, give it up.
For what it's worth, people who've actually studied this issue before declaring its likely outcome (what a concept, right?) say that:
1. It likely wouldn't favor either party
2. It wouldn't make a difference in election results.

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



How does randomnizing the names at the top of the ballot prevent disinterested voters from randomly picking the name at the top of the ballot?

[mu03eng]

Not enough apparently.

I think Benny is right to a certain extent. There is a significant pool of non-voters that don't like their bifurcated choice and so make a third choice which is simply to not participate. Oversimplification but if we put political position on two scales (plotted x-y graph) one of which is social issues (abortion, LBGT rights, poverty, etc) on a spectrum from very conservative to very liberal and the other economic (tax policy, military spending, entitlement policy, etc) also on a scale of very conservative to very liberal you end up with four quadrants:
-Sconservative + Econservative (base Republican)
-Sliberal + Eliberal (base Democrat)
-Sconservative + Eliberal
-Sliberal + Econservative

The later two quadrants are disproportionately non-voter types because they don't "see a choice" for them. Some of those two do vote because they feel much stronger about either the social or economic issues but I'm willing to bet the vast majority simply don't vote.

Obvious there is a group that is totally ambivalent but I think that group is less than half of the non-voting population.

[mu03eng]

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

The hypothesis of that article is different than the hypothesis of Benny's position. The article frames mandatory voting within the construct of a two party system and assumes if compelled to vote those would be the only choices. Benny's position is that mandatory voting lowers the barriers of entry for third party candidates because turn out the vote operations which is the mainstays of the modern political parties is much different than advocating for a candidate within a monolithic voting public.

Note, I don't think mandatory voting fixes the two party system issues we have....but it's not the worst idea ever either.

[Pakuni]

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.

Benny can claim whatever he wants, but this is wrong and the Supreme Court has said so. It's also not analogous.
The government is not forcing anyone to engage in gun ownership, and then requiring a license to do so.