Conversely, equal Senate representation initially favoured the northern states, which on average were smaller than the southern states.

But it is also true that at the time many of the smaller Northern states were involved in the triangle trade - sugar( & molasses) rum and slaves. So it still favored slavery.

Incidentally ita !, preferential voting is not woo-woo. You take an election where we might want a run off and rank your choices so that the results of a run-off can be calculated mathematically. IF there are 3 candidates and all the voters rank them and nobody gets a majority then it is straightforward to calculate who would win a run-off. Simple fairness in any election with more than two candidates.

Incidentally one result of not having PR or some form of choice voting is that even in Congress (which is supposed to be the small d democratic house of Congress, and which currently has approximately equal population in districts) we can have cases where one party wins a majority of the popular vote and ends up winning a minority of the seats. That has happened a number of times in the past 20 years, though it is so taken for granted that apparently it passes unnoticed. I don't know if happened this time or not, but conditions were certainly ripe for it.

TB, I think you might have missed my B'cracy-induced sarcasm. I don't know how preferential voting can need explaining to anyone who posted through that (I'd figure it you don't get it, it's a choice by now)--and I have been around that long.

Yeah I missed that you were being sarcastic or at least the target of the sarcasm.

But it is also true that at the time many of the smaller Northern states were involved in the triangle trade - sugar( & molasses) rum and slaves. So it still favored slavery.

At that point, we're basically saying simply that slavery had majority support in the US. I don't think it's correct to say that the Connecticut Compromise worsened that - it still favoured those areas where approval of slavery (and actual numbers of slaves) were lowest.

Incidentally one result of not having PR or some form of choice voting is that even in Congress (which is supposed to be the small d democratic house of Congress, and which currently has approximately equal population in districts) we can have cases where one party wins a majority of the popular vote and ends up winning a minority of the seats.

While I agree, I think that right now the more egregious culprit is that the electoral process - and here I'm thinking specifically of districting - is in most states under partisan political control. Sam Wang estimated that in this election, control of redistricting after the 2010 Census gave Republicans something like a 1.2% advantage in the House - the Dems would have to win the popular vote by at least 1.2% just to reach parity in the House. (Actually, they needed maybe double that due to incumbency advantages too. I'm waiting to see how that plays out in the final tallies.)

Yeah. I don't see why states are that important, but y'all do, so it's fine. I can wait until us immigrants take over and don't understand your history. I estimate...a decade, if we knuckle down and toss out the contraceptives.

I'm pretty sure you all still need to reach eighteen to vote.

I'm not so sure that the states really are that important anymore (beyond the fact that the political system treats them as being that important). The problem is that they were, once, and that's when the system was created. Since then, one of the outcomes of giving disproportionate say to states is that they can use that to keep hold of their disproportionate say.

I figure if all of us can't understand preferential voting, I can't imagine bringing it to the american public.

I'm totally going to get to do crazy voting next year!

TB,

this time, part of the reason for the GOP retention of seats in the House was re-districting. Without that, Dems would have regained the House.

Also, I can't believe how snowy it is!