Make voting weight proportional to voting.

[Arkady]

In the old days, white southerners essentially got extra voting power based on their property -- slaves weren't allowed to vote, yet still were partly counted for purposes of apportioning representation in the House, and thus also in apportioning Electoral College votes. Today, a similar phenomenon exists, where some citizens are effectively given extra voting weight relative to others, due to the fact they share a state with people who are either barred from voting (non-citizens, and in some cases prisoners and people who have been convicted of a felony), or discouraged from voting (with deliberately long voting lines in the districts of "undesirable" citizens, over-scrubbed voter lists, voter intimidation, voter ID requirements, intentionally difficult registration procedures, etc.)

This actually makes a big difference in real voter turnout rates (as opposed to official voter turnout rates, which only consider the share of eligible voters who vote). Here are the five states where the highest and lowest share of the population actually votes (based on 2012 real voter turnout rates):

Highest
(1) Minnesota 54.86%
(2) Maine 54.53%
(3) New Hampshire 54.42%
(4) Wisconsin 53.38%
(5) Iowa 51.72%

Lowest
Texas 30.56%
Hawaii 31.40%
California 34.70%
Oklahoma 34.92%
Arizona 35.46%

Although there are exceptions (California, Hawaii), the general trend is for Union/Blue-State areas to have high proportional voting, while Confederate/Red-State areas have low proportional voting. 10 of 15 low-turnout states went for Romney, while 12 of 15 high-turnout states went for Obama.

Another way to think about it is like this. In Minnesota, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 1.82 residents. In Texas, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 3.27 residents. That's almost twice as much voting power for Texans, at least in the House (in the Senate and Electoral College, things are made more complicated by the disproportionate voting power of small states).

There's a simple way to remedy this. Rather than apportioning voting power by resident population (which gives powerful groups an incentive to suppress the voting of weaker groups), apportion it by actual number of votes in the last general election. This would give every state an incentive to encourage voter turnout. Long voting lines would be a thing of the past. Registration would be as simple as possible. If a state implemented voter ID requirements, it would do so in a way designed to make it as little of an obstacle to voting as possible (including making the casting of provisional ballots easy for those who don't happen to have ID at the moment), and you couldn't artificially boost your voting power by importing huge populations of prisoners or non-citizen workers. This would also give presidential candidates more incentive to focus on issues that matter to ALL Americans, rather than giving disproportionate weight to the concerns of "swing state" residents, since if you neglect a "safe state," you could be pushing down its voting weight and its House apportionment, by pushing down voter enthusiasm.

 

[Hmmmm]

There is a certain logic to it but also it doesn't just feel right. I think that people have the right not to vote and it shouldn't be counted against them regarding the political power of their state. I typically vote in all elections of import. On some elections, I have not voted because I have no opinion such as not being able to differentiate between the candidates and voting would be a farce. Why should I have to go to the polls to turn in a blank ballot? These tend to be local elections but the principle applies to elections to federal office.

 

[Hmmmm]

Also, just because someone can't vote or doesn't vote doesn't de-obligate the state from having to provide support (infrastructure, entitlements) which often comes from federal dollars. That increases the incentive to get the voters to the polls but it doesn't help if they aren't successful.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

In the old days, white southerners essentially got extra voting power based on their property -- slaves weren't allowed to vote, yet still were partly counted for purposes of apportioning representation in the House, and thus also in apportioning Electoral College votes. Today, a similar phenomenon exists, where some citizens are effectively given extra voting weight relative to others, due to the fact they share a state with people who are either barred from voting (non-citizens, and in some cases prisoners and people who have been convicted of a felony), or discouraged from voting (with deliberately long voting lines in the districts of "undesirable" citizens, over-scrubbed voter lists, voter intimidation, voter ID requirements, intentionally difficult registration procedures, etc.)

This actually makes a big difference in real voter turnout rates (as opposed to official voter turnout rates, which only consider the share of eligible voters who vote). Here are the five states where the highest and lowest share of the population actually votes (based on 2012 real voter turnout rates):

Highest
(1) Minnesota 54.86%
(2) Maine 54.53%
(3) New Hampshire 54.42%
(4) Wisconsin 53.38%
(5) Iowa 51.72%

Lowest
Texas 30.56%
Hawaii 31.40%
California 34.70%
Oklahoma 34.92%
Arizona 35.46%

Although there are exceptions (California, Hawaii), the general trend is for Union/Blue-State areas to have high proportional voting, while Confederate/Red-State areas have low proportional voting. 10 of 15 low-turnout states went for Romney, while 12 of 15 high-turnout states went for Obama.

Another way to think about it is like this. In Minnesota, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 1.82 residents. In Texas, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 3.27 residents. That's almost twice as much voting power for Texans, at least in the House (in the Senate and Electoral College, things are made more complicated by the disproportionate voting power of small states).

There's a simple way to remedy this. Rather than apportioning voting power by resident population (which gives powerful groups an incentive to suppress the voting of weaker groups), apportion it by actual number of votes in the last general election. This would give every state an incentive to encourage voter turnout. Long voting lines would be a thing of the past. Registration would be as simple as possible. If a state implemented voter ID requirements, it would do so in a way designed to make it as little of an obstacle to voting as possible (including making the casting of provisional ballots easy for those who don't happen to have ID at the moment), and you couldn't artificially boost your voting power by importing huge populations of prisoners or non-citizen workers. This would also give presidential candidates more incentive to focus on issues that matter to ALL Americans, rather than giving disproportionate weight to the concerns of "swing state" residents, since if you neglect a "safe state," you could be pushing down its voting weight and its House apportionment, by pushing down voter enthusiasm.

Thats funny considering that Ca., Az, and TX. have a high ratio of illegal immigrant population and those folks have no bidness voting

 

[Arkady]

Thats funny considering that Ca., Az, and TX. have a high ratio of illegal immigrant population and those folks have no bidness voting

I'm not saying they should vote. I'm saying they shouldn't count for purposes of apportionment. Texas, Arizona, and California shouldn't be able to have extra voting power in Washington based on residents who had no say in choosing the representatives. Do you like the idea of some states getting "extra credit" in apportionment for illegal aliens?

 

[Arkady]

There is a certain logic to it but also it doesn't just feel right. I think that people have the right not to vote and it shouldn't be counted against them regarding the political power of their state. I typically vote in all elections of import. On some elections, I have not voted because I have no opinion such as not being able to differentiate between the candidates and voting would be a farce. Why should I have to go to the polls to turn in a blank ballot? These tend to be local elections but the principle applies to elections to federal office.

What I'm picturing wouldn't have apportionment done annual, but rather every four years, based on the general election. In those elections, the presidency is at stake, plus all the Representatives. People should be voting for that, and if they have so little civic interest that they can't be bothered, I don't feel bad if their state doesn't get to count them for apportionment purposes.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

you make excellent points but, I'm for making voting mandatory. they do it in Australia. you either complete a ballot or sign off on an empty ballot and if you do neither, you pay a fine.

 

[Arkady]

Also, just because someone can't vote or doesn't vote doesn't de-obligate the state from having to provide support (infrastructure, entitlements) which often comes from federal dollars. That increases the incentive to get the voters to the polls but it doesn't help if they aren't successful.

I wouldn't legally link federal dollars to voting.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

I'm not saying they should vote. I'm saying they shouldn't count for purposes of apportionment. Texas, Arizona, and California shouldn't be able to have extra voting power in Washington based on residents who had no say in choosing the representatives.


Do you like the idea of some states getting "extra credit" in apportionment for illegal aliens?

My answer is yes. If the Federal government has claimed time and time again that the problem of dealing with illegal immigration is their responsibility and they fail to act on the problem the states deserve the extra voting power

 

[as seen on tv]

so to sum up -

you want to disenfranchise citizens who don't go the polls, for whatever reason.

neat- a left wingers dream . people who are retired; shut ins; happy with their elected officials; busy at work; overseas (military or business) etc will be deprived of representation.

this will make america unique among the worlds nations. probably not for long though. dictators in places like venezuela, syria, and russia will quickly copy it, as way to solidify power.

you're an (anti) genius, lol

 

[Arkady]

you make excellent points but, I'm for making voting mandatory. they do it in Australia. you either complete a ballot or sign off on an empty ballot and if you do neither, you pay a fine.

That's an interesting idea -- though it doesn't fully cover my concern. State officials would still have an incentive to suppress voter turnout among populations they don't think favor them -- for example, Republicans wanting long lines at urban voting facilities, or Democrats wanting rural voting facilities to be few and far between, so that people would rather not vote and just pay the fine than drive an hour to get somewhere to vote. If the state, as a whole, paid a price, in lost power, for suppressed voting, voter suppression would be a lousy policy for politicians regardless of party.

 

[Arkady]

My answer is yes. If the Federal government has claimed time and time again that the problem of dealing with illegal immigration is their responsibility and they fail to act on the problem the states deserve the extra voting power

Why would that make them deserve the extra voting power? I'm not understanding. Voting power is meant to represent the will of the citizens. Providing voting power linked to non-citizens doesn't do that. You might as well give states extra voting power for, say, suffering interstate pollution (e.g., New England states choking on the fumes of filthy Midwestern power plants), which is another example of the federal government not doing its job. But just because the federal government isn't doing its job doesn't mean some states should get extra votes.

 

[Arkady]

so to sum up -

you want to disenfranchise citizens who don't go the polls, for whatever reason.

neat- a left wingers dream . people who are retired; shut ins; happy with their elected officials; busy at work; overseas (military or business) etc will be deprived of representation.

this will make america unique among the worlds nations. probably not for long though. dictators in places like venezuela, syria, and russia will quickly copy it, as way to solidify power.

you're an (anti) genius, lol

No. You don't know what the word disenfranchise means. It means to deprive a person of the right to vote. I'm not doing so. Everyone is entitled to vote. The only issue is whether your vote should get counted more than other people's because a higher share of your neighbors didn't vote. My solution would actually DECREASE disenfranchisement, by creating a disincentive for the kinds of state behaviors that amount to an effective disenfranchisement (like scrubbing eligible voters from voter registrations, creating intentionally long lines and crappy equipment in certain voting areas, putting out misinformation about voting times, places, and rules, etc.)

 

[Hmmmm]

I wouldn't legally link federal dollars to voting.

No, but voting power in congress would be based upon voting. Congress doles out the bucks and they don't always do it fairly.

 

[worldlymrb]

Govt employees or anyone with a govt contracts or subsidy should be ineligible to vote in that govts election due to conflicts of intetests.

Example:

If you are employed by the state, you can vote in federal/ local elections, but not in the state election

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

But just because the federal government isn't doing its job doesn't mean some states should get extra votes.

Oh yes it does.. If the other states don't like it maybe they should insist on the Feds to get their act together instead of ignoring responsibilities because it affects all states not just the ones on the front line.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

That's an interesting idea -- though it doesn't fully cover my concern. State officials would still have an incentive to suppress voter turnout among populations they don't think favor them -- for example, Republicans wanting long lines at urban voting facilities, or Democrats wanting rural voting facilities to be few and far between, so that people would rather not vote and just pay the fine than drive an hour to get somewhere to vote. If the state, as a whole, paid a price, in lost power, for suppressed voting, voter suppression would be a lousy policy for politicians regardless of party.

you may be too tolerant of the vote suppressors. you let them off the hook until there's some pressure on them vis a vis your apportion plan.
I think they should be mocked and shamed. citizenship requires participation in our democratic republic. if the "patriots" insist on symbols like having our children recite the Pledge of Allegiance and waving the flag, surely they can get serious about what being a citizen requires.

 

[Dawg]

In the old days, white southerners essentially got extra voting power based on their property -- slaves weren't allowed to vote, yet still were partly counted for purposes of apportioning representation in the House, and thus also in apportioning Electoral College votes. Today, a similar phenomenon exists, where some citizens are effectively given extra voting weight relative to others, due to the fact they share a state with people who are either barred from voting (non-citizens, and in some cases prisoners and people who have been convicted of a felony), or discouraged from voting (with deliberately long voting lines in the districts of "undesirable" citizens, over-scrubbed voter lists, voter intimidation, voter ID requirements, intentionally difficult registration procedures, etc.)

This actually makes a big difference in real voter turnout rates (as opposed to official voter turnout rates, which only consider the share of eligible voters who vote). Here are the five states where the highest and lowest share of the population actually votes (based on 2012 real voter turnout rates):

Highest
(1) Minnesota 54.86%
(2) Maine 54.53%
(3) New Hampshire 54.42%
(4) Wisconsin 53.38%
(5) Iowa 51.72%

Lowest
Texas 30.56%
Hawaii 31.40%
California 34.70%
Oklahoma 34.92%
Arizona 35.46%

Although there are exceptions (California, Hawaii), the general trend is for Union/Blue-State areas to have high proportional voting, while Confederate/Red-State areas have low proportional voting. 10 of 15 low-turnout states went for Romney, while 12 of 15 high-turnout states went for Obama.

Another way to think about it is like this. In Minnesota, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 1.82 residents. In Texas, each voter is effectively given the voting power attributable to 3.27 residents. That's almost twice as much voting power for Texans, at least in the House (in the Senate and Electoral College, things are made more complicated by the disproportionate voting power of small states).

There's a simple way to remedy this. Rather than apportioning voting power by resident population (which gives powerful groups an incentive to suppress the voting of weaker groups), apportion it by actual number of votes in the last general election. This would give every state an incentive to encourage voter turnout. Long voting lines would be a thing of the past. Registration would be as simple as possible. If a state implemented voter ID requirements, it would do so in a way designed to make it as little of an obstacle to voting as possible (including making the casting of provisional ballots easy for those who don't happen to have ID at the moment), and you couldn't artificially boost your voting power by importing huge populations of prisoners or non-citizen workers. This would also give presidential candidates more incentive to focus on issues that matter to ALL Americans, rather than giving disproportionate weight to the concerns of "swing state" residents, since if you neglect a "safe state," you could be pushing down its voting weight and its House apportionment, by pushing down voter enthusiasm.

you left out those Southern white voters were DEMOCRATS--Plantation Owners who owned both black & white slaves.............(maybe you will get a client and have something else to do than the above)

 

[Arkady]

No, but voting power in congress would be based upon voting. Congress doles out the bucks and they don't always do it fairly.

Agreed. However, this would actually tend to counter-balance the existing unfairness in the system.

Currently, the states that get the most federal funding per tax dollar paid are:

New Mexico: $2.63
West Virginia: $2.57
Mississippi: $2.47
Hawaii: $2.38
Alabama: $2.03
Alaska: $1.93
Montana: $1.92
South Carolina: $1.92
Maine: $1.78

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

Of those, only Montana and Maine have better-than-median voter turnout. Most of the list are unusually low-turnout states. So, if we deprived that list of some voting power in Washington, by making that power reflective of actual voting, it would be expected to make Congress MORE fair in doling out the bucks, not less so.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

No. You don't know what the word disenfranchise means. It means to deprive a person of the right to vote. I'm not doing so. Everyone is entitled to vote. The only issue is whether your vote should get counted more than other people's because a higher share of your neighbors didn't vote. My solution would actually DECREASE disenfranchisement, by creating a disincentive for the kinds of state behaviors that amount to an effective disenfranchisement (like scrubbing eligible voters from voter registrations, creating intentionally long lines and crappy equipment in certain voting areas, putting out misinformation about voting times, places, and rules, etc.)

Furthermore the Feds mandate bilingual education and other costly assistance programs on the states dollar as a result of illegal immigration why not allocate the voting power based on the population?