> … which means that less than 5% of Americans will truly be deciding who's in control of the House
Something about this framing seems to undersell the efforts and influence of the other 95% of voters.
If a soccer match were tied 6-6 and a last minute winner made it 6-7, the final goal scorer may be celebrated as the hero, but in truth the victory was won on the back of six other goals too.
In soccer goals are fungible. Votes are not fungible. Wasted or excess votes in safe districts don't sum to anything at all. Not even to mention the "fractions of a representative" a vote is worth implied by district sizes which can vary by almost 2X in the house or even more dramatically in the electoral college and senate of course.
I think that's an oversimplification. Voting does not have the same dynamics as soccer goals. Maybe a better analogy would be that the team is already winning 5-1 and in the last minute someone makes it 5-2. Good job of course, but can't really be said to influence the outcome.
I believe the point is that, since the electoral races are already decided in terms of party, the only decision is whom to nominate. This decision is made in the primaries, by a very small number of voters.
There's a reason why the majority of Americans don't bother voting. It has nothing to do with laziness or apathy. It's because voting does not matter, and never did.
It's like one of those kid steering wheels that lets the little tike pretend he's driving.
The "candidates" are preselected by powers unseen behind the curtain in smoke filled rooms, and the "choices" you are presented with are not actual choices at all.
This is simply untrue. Conservatives have an outsized advantage because of organizing local voting. Most competitive voting areas are decided by thousands of votes, that could easily be decided by non-voters.
Also the majority of Americans do vote.
But items like vote roll purges, not having voting day be a holiday, anti-mail in ballot efforts, general lack of civic education over the years and in the msm have had a much larger effect than simple “indifference “.
> His organization says 32 states currently don't have a single competitive congressional race
I agree that the system is broken, but this is not a very fair statistic. 5 states have only a single seat in the House of Representatives. A further 7 states have just two seats. In total, there are 23 states with 5 seats or fewer. These states are all small and rural, which doesn't exactly make for a diverse population and means the seats tend to be safe R. For the states with a single major city (like Omaha for Nebraska) that city typically has its own district, and will hence be safe D in a sea of safe R. It's only in the more populous, more diverse areas where you start to get a lot of people living together who disagree with each other. This is what creates competitive races.
I've long wanted to kill (or drastically reduce) the narrative of "the swing voter" -- who mostly doesn't matter, and even if they do, is not reliable enough to be able to "influence."
In the US, it's basically about turnout and/or "suppression." There's a wall of "red no matter who" that's kind of the default, and whether or not blue wins is up to getting enough young people excited -- and perhaps, more importantly, ensuring that blue voters and votes aren't "cheated."
The electoral system is at the root of so many problems. We need sane redistricting, elimination of electoral college, dramatic expansion of the Congress, term limit, age limits and many other changes.
You are all over the place. Let me make it simple for you. You want to end Gerrymandering. I agree with this. There are relatively simple algorithms that would do it much better. It won't make all races competitive but there will be far more.
Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. To get enough power as person in Congress to do anything takes a decade or more, your idea just makes it worse. As for getting rid of the EC, think of it as districts you can't Gerrymander. It also ensures those that grow our food get a voice. And since most of the people in cities can't keep a house plant alive yet somehow want to decide how a farm works, that's a good idea not to empower the lunacy of the mob.
Term limits are good. Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional.
The EC gives rural unpopulated states more say in federal decision making than more populous urban states. This has nothing to do with agriculture, California is the country’s biggest agriculture producer yet its farmers have less of a voice than those in Wyoming where agriculture is actually much rarer.
It is simply an accident of history that Wyoming, a state with less people than San Francisco (not even the Bay Area’s biggest city) has just as many senators as the entire state of California.
That is understanding the matter far too much. Without the compromise of the bicameral legislature, the country never would have existed. That is not simply an accident of history; that is a foundational part of the social contract which forms this nation.
By the time Wyoming was admitted into the union it already led to huge distortions that weren’t present with the original 13 colonies. It’s ironic that it took Trump to bring America to a real breaking point though.
We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with differing needs, and a president should have an incentive to balance those needs. The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.
I don't think having the small minority of swing states repeatedly determine the elections is doing anything for balance. The notion that the electoral college exists to balance rural and urban interests is a total fiction. Urban populations were at 5% in 1790, it wasn't on anybody's mind. The present effect is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. You may as well define a college where every religion gets an equal say: why should the atheists and Christians get to impose their will on the Sikhs and Druze? Just because there are more Christians who are nothing like them?
Cities and states do not have needs or feelings. Humans do. The electoral college is deeply unfair system where humans in low population states have far more say than others. Everyone should have equal say.
You've stitched together a contradictory grab bag of reforms from opposite ends of the political spectrum without a single coherent theory connecting them, which tells me you're emotionally venting about dysfunction rather than actually thinking about how power and representation work.
It's not the safe districts which have the most clout. Parties will promise anything to swing districts, whereas demographics that always vote for one party or another can safely be ignored.
> Fewer congressional contests are expected to be competitive this fall, compared with past election cycles, and experts say the extraordinary mid-decade redistricting efforts initiated by President Trump are largely to blame.
> Fewer competitive seats means the overwhelming majority — more than 90% — of congressional races will pretty much be decided during primary elections, which see far fewer voters participate than general elections.
> "Right now, we only rate 18 out of 435 races as toss ups, which means that less than 5% of Americans will truly be deciding who's in control of the House," David Wasserman, senior elections analyst for the Cook Political Report, told NPR.
Also, FEC still lacks a quorum of commissioners and so they can't prosecute any new campaign finance violations (for example those of the current press secretary)
> … which means that less than 5% of Americans will truly be deciding who's in control of the House
Something about this framing seems to undersell the efforts and influence of the other 95% of voters.
If a soccer match were tied 6-6 and a last minute winner made it 6-7, the final goal scorer may be celebrated as the hero, but in truth the victory was won on the back of six other goals too.
In soccer goals are fungible. Votes are not fungible. Wasted or excess votes in safe districts don't sum to anything at all. Not even to mention the "fractions of a representative" a vote is worth implied by district sizes which can vary by almost 2X in the house or even more dramatically in the electoral college and senate of course.
Yeah that really doesn't fly.
If you want to make a soccer analogy, it's like you get to pick the players on both teams. Surprise, the outcome is pretty much known in advance.
I've always liked this. In the USA, the voter doesn't pick their politician. It's the other way around, the politician picks their voters
I think that's an oversimplification. Voting does not have the same dynamics as soccer goals. Maybe a better analogy would be that the team is already winning 5-1 and in the last minute someone makes it 5-2. Good job of course, but can't really be said to influence the outcome.
I believe the point is that, since the electoral races are already decided in terms of party, the only decision is whom to nominate. This decision is made in the primaries, by a very small number of voters.
Isn’t it more like the referee being for sale? He who pays more scores more goals
There's a reason why the majority of Americans don't bother voting. It has nothing to do with laziness or apathy. It's because voting does not matter, and never did.
It's like one of those kid steering wheels that lets the little tike pretend he's driving.
The "candidates" are preselected by powers unseen behind the curtain in smoke filled rooms, and the "choices" you are presented with are not actual choices at all.
This is simply untrue. Conservatives have an outsized advantage because of organizing local voting. Most competitive voting areas are decided by thousands of votes, that could easily be decided by non-voters.
Also the majority of Americans do vote.
But items like vote roll purges, not having voting day be a holiday, anti-mail in ballot efforts, general lack of civic education over the years and in the msm have had a much larger effect than simple “indifference “.
[dead]
> His organization says 32 states currently don't have a single competitive congressional race
I agree that the system is broken, but this is not a very fair statistic. 5 states have only a single seat in the House of Representatives. A further 7 states have just two seats. In total, there are 23 states with 5 seats or fewer. These states are all small and rural, which doesn't exactly make for a diverse population and means the seats tend to be safe R. For the states with a single major city (like Omaha for Nebraska) that city typically has its own district, and will hence be safe D in a sea of safe R. It's only in the more populous, more diverse areas where you start to get a lot of people living together who disagree with each other. This is what creates competitive races.
I've long wanted to kill (or drastically reduce) the narrative of "the swing voter" -- who mostly doesn't matter, and even if they do, is not reliable enough to be able to "influence."
In the US, it's basically about turnout and/or "suppression." There's a wall of "red no matter who" that's kind of the default, and whether or not blue wins is up to getting enough young people excited -- and perhaps, more importantly, ensuring that blue voters and votes aren't "cheated."
The electoral system is at the root of so many problems. We need sane redistricting, elimination of electoral college, dramatic expansion of the Congress, term limit, age limits and many other changes.
You are all over the place. Let me make it simple for you. You want to end Gerrymandering. I agree with this. There are relatively simple algorithms that would do it much better. It won't make all races competitive but there will be far more.
Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. To get enough power as person in Congress to do anything takes a decade or more, your idea just makes it worse. As for getting rid of the EC, think of it as districts you can't Gerrymander. It also ensures those that grow our food get a voice. And since most of the people in cities can't keep a house plant alive yet somehow want to decide how a farm works, that's a good idea not to empower the lunacy of the mob.
Term limits are good. Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional.
The EC gives rural unpopulated states more say in federal decision making than more populous urban states. This has nothing to do with agriculture, California is the country’s biggest agriculture producer yet its farmers have less of a voice than those in Wyoming where agriculture is actually much rarer.
It is simply an accident of history that Wyoming, a state with less people than San Francisco (not even the Bay Area’s biggest city) has just as many senators as the entire state of California.
> It is simply an accident of history...
That is understanding the matter far too much. Without the compromise of the bicameral legislature, the country never would have existed. That is not simply an accident of history; that is a foundational part of the social contract which forms this nation.
I'm sure that compromise was important at the time, but is an albatross now.
By the time Wyoming was admitted into the union it already led to huge distortions that weren’t present with the original 13 colonies. It’s ironic that it took Trump to bring America to a real breaking point though.
> elimination of electoral college
We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with differing needs, and a president should have an incentive to balance those needs. The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.
I don't think having the small minority of swing states repeatedly determine the elections is doing anything for balance. The notion that the electoral college exists to balance rural and urban interests is a total fiction. Urban populations were at 5% in 1790, it wasn't on anybody's mind. The present effect is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. You may as well define a college where every religion gets an equal say: why should the atheists and Christians get to impose their will on the Sikhs and Druze? Just because there are more Christians who are nothing like them?
> The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.
Better for the bottom N states by population to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them?
Cities and states do not have needs or feelings. Humans do. The electoral college is deeply unfair system where humans in low population states have far more say than others. Everyone should have equal say.
You've stitched together a contradictory grab bag of reforms from opposite ends of the political spectrum without a single coherent theory connecting them, which tells me you're emotionally venting about dysfunction rather than actually thinking about how power and representation work.
It's not the safe districts which have the most clout. Parties will promise anything to swing districts, whereas demographics that always vote for one party or another can safely be ignored.
From the article:
> Fewer congressional contests are expected to be competitive this fall, compared with past election cycles, and experts say the extraordinary mid-decade redistricting efforts initiated by President Trump are largely to blame.
> Fewer competitive seats means the overwhelming majority — more than 90% — of congressional races will pretty much be decided during primary elections, which see far fewer voters participate than general elections.
> "Right now, we only rate 18 out of 435 races as toss ups, which means that less than 5% of Americans will truly be deciding who's in control of the House," David Wasserman, senior elections analyst for the Cook Political Report, told NPR.
Also, FEC still lacks a quorum of commissioners and so they can't prosecute any new campaign finance violations (for example those of the current press secretary)
Good thing no one put them in charge of enforcing gravity.
[dead]