[EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

[Gaddie, Ronald K.]

I can get on board with that idea, for certain.

________________________________
Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
President's Associates Presidential Professor & Chair
Department of Political Science<http://psc.ou.edu>
Associate Director, Center for Intelligence & National Security<http://cins.ouhsc.edu>
The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019
Phone: 405.325.2061
Email: rkgaddie at ou.edu<mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>
On twitter: @GaddieWindage<https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Thomas J. Cares [Tom at tomcares.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:08 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] The Supreme Court's Decision to Decide Whether It's One Person, One Vote or One Voter, One Vote

I'd imagine Rob Richie* and I would both like to see larger multi-member districts, using the single transferable vote, wherein these larger districts are able to be drawn to match each other equally BOTH in population and (the unambiguous) number of registered voters. If the California Assembly, for example had 8 districts with 10 members each, elected using single transferable voting, You could probably draw 8 good districts that have both roughly equal residents and roughly equal registered voters.

-Thomas Cares

*I don't know if Rob would take issue with making it a goal to match both those things. I'm confident he supports MMDs and STV. I'd imagine he wouldn't mind tossing in that goal; it creates a selling point to those who live in districts with lots of voters, but might detract STVMMD interest from those who live in districts with relatively few registered voters. Of course, my belief is that government is most healthy when its an arm of the electorate, otherwise, the electorate is forced to do things like switching between republican and democratic governors to try to maintain balance, or use ballot propositions to tie legislatures' hands, etc. If you can harmonize the electorate with government, it makes for a healthier society.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org<mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>> wrote:
The problem for basing representation on voting population rather than resident population is measuring it. Turnout in the last election doesn't work, because that is a highly volatile subset of qualified voters. About the only measure that might work would be numbers registered to vote, but that number can change quickly from one election cycle to the next, and may include many no longer qualified as of the date the district lines are drawn, so then the issues become how to weed the lists and how to decide the cutoff date for the number. Census counts might not be strictly constitutional, but they are far more practical.

But it would provide an incentive to register more voters, which is not necessarily a good thing. Do we really want even more low-information voters?

Or we could go to the Australian system and register everyone qualified, and perhaps make voting mandatory.

In any case, an expensive proposition.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
13359 N Hwy 183 #406-144               twitter.com/lex_rex<http://twitter.com/lex_rex>
Austin, TX 78750 512/299-5001<tel:512%2F299-5001>  jon.roland at constitution.org<mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150526/9ddf79c5/attachment.html>