The 2016 United States Presidential Election

I see that you are still tying the election to residence. You are just weakening the ties.Your opponents in this discussion seem to be unable to break away from the traditional idea of districts..I want to be more radical.I live in a suburb of Chicago. But it is mainly a bedroom community. I know few of my neighbors, and even then I don't often talk to them.I am, however, far more engaged in:the community of mathematicians;
the community of computer scientists;
the community of linux users;
the community of bloggers.By contrast, I have almost no involvement in:
the community of baseball fans;
the community of football fans;
the community of TV entertainment watchers.There is some value in representation of geographic regions. But the senate already takes care of that. Most regional concerns are with matters handled by state and municipal government. For the federal government, we should be looking for something different.I think it could be great if I could vote for a representative of, say, the community of mathematicians. The Internet has allowed us to create important communities that are not geographically based. Why not have house elections handled in accordance with those new non-geographic communities. Perhaps allow people to "enroll" in a community of their choice.

I really like that idea and would love to see it extended to legislation as well. Let those who represent the community of science propose and write bills dealing with science...

This seems flawed to me. People are not a member of only one community, so you would just be forced to pick one of your many allegiances (unless you're offering people as many votes as they choose) - how is this an improvement on the geographic one?What's more, anyone who pays attention to politics and wasn't an idiot would immediately realise that it's pointless to actually pick a community you identify with, since it would be much more effective to enrol yourself in a swing community where your vote is more likely to have an impact.

The difference between Manhattan and rural upstate New York is probably greater than the difference between 1776 London and 1776 Boston. You should be voting for somebody who will. Why stop at state lines? Why shouldn't you be able to vote for somebody in Hawaii who agrees with you?

You can't disenfranchise idiots.

NoNukes writes: Then enough people who share the concerns of Richmond, VA will elect a Rep who shares their concerns. The Rep will get enough votes to fall into the top N needed to make it.You don't have to live in Richmond to vote for someone who shares your concerns there. You could actually live in Woodbridge.

ringo asks: Indeed! If the Hawaiian gets enough votes to fall into the top N needed....There may be an issue within the US Constitution, however...i dunno.

I mentioned it because in Canada that's probably what would happen. Our federal government has control over federal elections (except for details like polling station opening and closing times). It's currently considering doing away with the first-past-the-post system, though I predict (and hope) that it will come to nothing.If I voted Green the winning candidate would probably be in Vancouver where the climate is completely different. I'd rather be represented by somebody I can't agree with on anything than by somebody who doesn't have a clue.

I want a representative for whom Woodbridge's interests is foremost, even if I don't agree with every solution he proposes. I don't want a general good guy who values Woodbridge equally with Richmond and Quantico.

My concern with the whole thing is that, during the Republican primaries, it turned out that the polls were underestimating the vote Trump would get by around 5 to 10% in a lot of states. Maybe the same thing is happening now?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

In that case Trump is on track to lose the election by one of the biggest margins in US history. He may even eclipse the McGovern lose of 1972. If the polls are accurate, though, he could be the first major presidential candidate to receive 0 electoral college votes.

I'm not too sure why you wrote that. Your comment doesn't make any sense.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Trump may get 40% of the popular vote, but the electoral college is a different thing. McGovern ended up with 38% of the popular vote nation-wide but lost the election 520 to 17 electoral votes.If he keeps trying hard, as he seems to be doing, Trump could get all the way to zero.

So you need a metric that structures people by similar interests. One that would be hard to tamper with and that would be easy to determine.What about using population density to define 'districts' rather than specific areas?What about using income level?Enjoy

I guess I'd like government focused on the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments are "instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" so that their citizens might enjoy the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."This is, of course, a goal and an ideal to work towards, not a universally achievable reality, but successful governments endeavor in this direction by managing the affairs of the country (political, economic, infrastructure, military, international relations, trade, etc.) so as to foster a climate where people are best able to pursue their desires. Gerrymandering operates against this by distorting representation, biasing it toward one group at the expense of others. It seems to possess an insidious component in that government has proved unable to eliminate it - its advantages are just too enticing to most political parties. If they're in power in a state then they do it, and if they're not in power then they wait until they are and then they do it.And gerrymandering notwithstanding, it seems very unlikely that the structure of representation will shift away from geography. If you want the best representation for your profession or your sport or your hobby or your avocation then you must vote for those who will advantage them best. The simplest way for government to satisfy your desires is to provide a general environment that provides you the most economic benefit, and then you can spend your money to pursue whatever you like.But there are other very important factors. Do you want to exit your luxury apartment building in the city only to have to step carefully over the homeless living on the sidewalk? Do you want a cultural climate of first rate art and music that takes government support to provide widely and effectively? Do you want higher education to be more affordable so as to raise the general level of discourse, both in personal life and politically? Do you want to travel on roads and bridges that aren't crumbling, and use air travel that isn't demeaning and oppressive? Travel on buses and subways without fearing for your life or at least your wallet or purse? Drive to work without sitting at a light next to someone holding a homemade sign saying, "Homeless, please help"?These types of goals often require voting against one's best economic interests because they require higher taxes. Many of these goals also require an attitude that although it is best if people work and provide for themselves that this isn't possible for everyone.So that's how I feel, but what does that mean for me for this election? It means I must make the choice that makes it least likely that Trump will win, which here in New Hampshire means voting for Hillary Clinton.--Percy