Originally Posted by Nucularburro:
It's worth remembering that around ten million us citizens have no representation in it's government by virtue of living in DC, Puerto Rico, or outside it's borders.
Campfirewest, U.S. voters who, to greater or lesser extents disagree and voted against their district's current congressional representative are poorly or lesser well represented by their districts' representatives.
Nucularburro additionally reminds us of U.S. House members from other than the 50 states, cannot vote in matters before the U.S. House of representatives. Votes cast by all of those afore mentioned U.S. Citizens have no political consequences and their votes in general election did not matter.

You contend otherwise? Could and would you further elaborate on your previously posted response? Respectfully, Supposn

Sure it is. DC population + Puerto Rico + us citizens living abroad comes in the order of approx 10 million.

Such folks cannot vote in anything but presidential elections. In that case they can vote in state of last residence (if there was one - my kids have never resided in any state) provided they can get it to send them a ballot (I haven't been able to get one in two election cycles). There are special rules for military of course.

If they vote for the political party I like, they matter. If not, they don't.

Ejames209, we or I am not discussing what votes matter to us individually, but rather what voters' votes are or are not politically consequential.

Votes for other than the congressional district's winning candidate are eventually of no consequence within any U.S. House of Representative's eventual proceedings; Votes for other than a state's winning senatorial candidate are eventually of no consequence within any U.S. Senate proceedings.
In all instances, to the extent that a voter disagrees with their districts U.S. congressional representative, or their state's U.S. senator on any issue being decided by congress, those voters' opinions and votes are less, or entirely not represented within our federal legislative chambers. Respectfully,Supposn

An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

Votes for other than the Democratic House of Representative candidates within predominantly Democratic congressional districts, are futile votes. Votes for Democrat house candidates to represent predominantly Republican congressional district are also ineffective; they're essentially futile votes. Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? (I digress to discuss the U.S. Constitution which is germane to this question).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There were many compromises among the delegates to what then evolved to be the United States first constitutional convention. I do not regret most of the compromises among the delegates from the then greater or lesser populous states. Delegates from lesser populated states required some assurances that their states' priorities would not be passed over because the more populous states had the majority of votes in our federal legislatures, and among the voters who would determine those who would direct what became the executive branch of our federal government. Over the centuries, the size and proportional distribution of our nation's population have changed, but our now lesser populated states continue to be concerned for their interests; they do not want to be disfavored for the sake of our more populous states.


Each state's numbers of members to the to the U.S. House of Representatives are primarily determined by their state's population. Regardless of their populations, each state is represented by exactly two members of the U.S. Senate. Both the factors of each state's numbers of U.S House representatives and their state's numbers of U.S. senators are indirectly reflected by their state's numbers of electors within the U.S. Electoral college to elect our president, are indirectly based upon those state's numbers of members to each Congressional chamber and to the electoral College which are also due to those first U.S. constitutional convention compromises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I perceive no good reason to change any of these concepts in our constitution. But there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast rather than only vote for your congressional districts winner, be of some effect upon our nation's future policies? Must all Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes? Currently Republicans' voting in a predominately democratic congressional districts, or a Democrats voting in predominately republican districts are all casting futile votes. nearly half of our nations votes have effectively no affect upon our nation's future political policies.

I advocate candidates for the House Representatives receiving 1% or more of their district's votes, should be considered as been viable candidates. All candidates, including the elected candidates should be awarded the power of weighed members' votes in all proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives. The weight of those votes being the percentages of votes the candidates received in their district's previous general election. Those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House.

This same concept could be applied to elections and procedures of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Electoral College. Within this concept, every general election vote would somewhat affect our nation's future policies. Respectfully, Supposn

have you heard of proportional representation before?

Uke_master, proportional representation would require each of the organizations, (i.e. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Electoral College), each substantially increase their numbers of members. That would be contrary to the compromise devised by our nation's first constitutional convention's delegates. Now as then, the smaller USA States would never vote to ratify a proportional representation system.
This proposal wouldn't increase those organizations elected and participating members. Respectfully, Supposn

Didn't you make this same post a few months ago?




Edit: Found it. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...98/?highlight=

Didace, yes, that's my post. Respectfully, Supposn

I think his point was that, much like your signature on every post that already has your name next to it, we probably didn't need a second thread for this. I'm inclined to agree.

Edit to add: Ah, I notice even within that thread, there had been at least one merge already. It would be great if, rather than starting a new thread to say basically the same thing, you could just bump your old thread. Thanks!

Simple remedy to gerrymandering of congressional districts; weigh the votes of U.S. House of Representatives members.

Each congressional district's representative's votes within congressional proceedings should have weight proportional to the percentage of votes that favored the winner when they last elected or reelected their district's representative.

This proposal doesn't require amending our constitution or passing a congressional bill. Each of the congressional chambers determine their own rules of procedures. Respectfully. Supposn

The history of the US electoral system is one of sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle attempts to rig it by a variety of means. Gerrymandering and the electoral college being prime. The two party system being another.

Abolishing the electoral college would be a good start for fixing your broken politics. Increasing the franchise to the young would be another - both because they have more of a stake in society than the old, and because they are taxed on their work, and wasn't one of the founding principles of the american revolution 'no taxation without representation'? One of my more radical but certainly a political non-starter of an idea was to have a mirror on the voting age i.e. if you must be 15 or older to vote, those within 15 years of the average life expectancy should have their right to vote removed.

One of the most important things you could do is remove all the bs restrictions on voting that are superficially to prevent electoral fraud which has been shown to be vanishingly irrelevant and only serves to disenfranchise those who might vote democrat far more than those who might republican, alongside a whole host of bs attempts to steal elections.

They do