Comments for All About Voting

Comment on governing.com article – Redistricting: Should Computers Draw the Lines? by Alex Zorach

Alex Zorach — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:42:58 +0000

I really agree with the conclusions that Josh Goodman draws here. I think that algorithms have their role in redistricting, and can help guide the process, but I think that ultimately, you need a social / institutional solution as well. Iowa provides a good example of this. Their system works and I think having a similar solution implemented in all states would be a move in the right direction--if not enough to completely and permanently solve this problem. I just wrote an article about gerrymandering on my opinion site. There are two other groups which I'd like to point to which are tackling this issue. Their websites are FairVote.org and RangeVoting.org. I'd encourage you to check out all three pages. FairVote's plan is particularly comprehensive. Even if you don't agree with everything on either of those sites, they're interesting to read. An end to gerrymandering can become a political reality if we make it one by talking about it. You are doing your part by writing about it and sharing others' writings, so keep it up!

Comment on governing.com article – Redistricting: Should Computers Draw the Lines? by John Elkins

John Elkins — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:17:07 +0000

why can’t each precinct on the border decide which district it wants to belong to?

Comment on shortest splitline algorithm vs voting rights act? by billy walshe

billy walshe — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:17:18 +0000

with a large enough amount of districts, both minority groups and local areas would retain their cultural identity in expression of their political views. political boundaries based on ethnic boundaries is offensive to me, and of course any politician will be against a completely unbiased system. it is not that it would be illegal that bothers them and this should be obvious. they argue that it could be illegal, and this is a half-truth non-argument that is not even thought through.

Comment on insane election results? chalk it up to IRV by stuflash

stuflash — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:46:30 +0000

The result in the hypothetical video is premised on two improbabilities. First, as pointed out by Barney, Sam is unlikely to convince Manny’s supporters to support him ahead of their prior first choice. More likely is that they’d place Sam ahead of Joel, but would still place Manny first. Second, Sam would be foolish to only approach voters favoring Manny. If he got just two of Joel’s supporters to place him first, he’d win outright. Finally, voters seldom vote in such a lockstep manner. A more likely result is that some who chose Manny as first would choose Sam second, and some would choose Joel, etc. Under this scenario, the third place candidate’s votes would be split between the other two, and the likely result will be to push the leading candidate over the top — that is, unless both Manny’s and Joel’s voters HATED Sam, in which case Sam would still lose, as he should.

Comment on Teaching company voting methods video by InfoHedon

InfoHedon — Sat, 15 May 2010 17:58:23 +0000

It’s nice to see the familiar references come up in this presentation. I still wish Ka-Ping-Yee would have added range voting to the simulations so that those graphics could have been included.

The speaker here also didn’t include anything about Warren Smith’s computer model using Bayesian Regret shown on the range voting website.

Comment on insane election results? chalk it up to IRV by InfoHedon

InfoHedon — Sat, 15 May 2010 17:53:07 +0000

I’m totally with you on approval and range. IRV is a lot of complexity for a whole lot of nothing.

Comment on Should I apply for the Prop 11 redistricting commission? by dhalsim2

dhalsim2 — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:16:55 +0000

So did you apply? :)

Comment on voting in the America – epic FAIL by mvymvy

mvymvy — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:31:15 +0000

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Comment on voting in the America – epic FAIL by mvymvy

mvymvy — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:30:54 +0000

Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Comment on voting in the America – epic FAIL by Jen

Jen — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:42:02 +0000

nice! wish i had been there :)