> Frank Schmidt wrote: > > *attempting to process* > > I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying > > to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. > > Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for > > his > > district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the > > voters > > might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority > > against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his > > solid majority. > > > > Is that what you mean? > > I think it is more along the lines of ......regardless of what party > an elected official belongs to, I benefit by having that officials > representation. Representation by an opposition party is on the whole > going to be better than no representation at all. > > Frex: I know of people who have had problems with the VA, talked to > their Rep and was able to get some resolution. Reps do not ask who you > voted for by and large, just if you are in their district. This is the > kind of thing almost any Rep would do for a constituent.
Are you happy with the current system of single-member districts? Do you think multi-member districts would be worse, although you would probably get a Representative you actually voted for? >>> The other issue is representation. My state is unfairly >>> represented when compared to Wyoming or Alaska. And that >>> unfairness spreads even to representation by electors in >>> presidential elections. Who is elected is irrelevent. To that sentence I cannot subscribe. >>> What is relevent is that my vote is worth less in every >>> way measurable than a voter in Wyoming. That is unfair >>> and should be redressed. >> >> OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is >> adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 >> Representatives, and equal or better representation than >> Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will >> have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and >> 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation >> than Texas. >> >>> I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in >>> any case. >>> >>> xponent >>> No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru >>> rob >> >> So what do you think now? > > Well California is being shorted 12 Representatives. You > think they are going to throw a fit if some other states > get only a little bit better represented? Right now they > are shorted a lot. > > xponent > Status Quotient Maru > rob I looked at apportionment data again. California deserves 435*(CA population)/(USA population) = 52.44 seats. California gets 53. I don't see where they are shorted. Now if the states would be proportionally represented in the electoral college, California would get 65. But since every state gets its number of Representatives plus number of Senators, they only get 55. So you might say they are ten seats short there, but not 12. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
