Some Thoughts on Proportional Representation, by State Delegation, in the US House of Representatives

After listening to Ken Rudin & Ron Elving talk about redistricting for a brief couple of minutes on last weeks It's All Politics (I really wish they dedicated more time to it) I was struck with a brilliant idea (of which I have many): Why not determine House delegations via proportional representation? Now my initial reaction was that this must not be constitutional. Yet upon a reading of Article I of the US Constitution it became evidently clear that the election of a defined number of representatives is up to each individual state unless superseded by federal law. Which means states can do whatever they want as long as they come to the correct total of legislators unless Congress says no.

That is of course where I hit a snag. Federal law since 1967 does in fact say all Reps must come from districts of equal size.

I do however think the benefits of proportional representation are great enough to warrant the repeal of that law. I think it would promote the use of third parties in the US, in more populous states it would allow for greater representation among minorities, and would result in less "big wave elections". With that said I am a huge proponent of a system that has more than 2 parties and can't be trusted.

Now if the US were to repeal that law I am worried that Wesberry v. Sanders might get in the way of constitutionality. I would argue that because the ratio of population to the number of reps is more or less equal in each state then therefore you are achieving 1 person 1 vote. But I can entertain the argument that because, under a proportional system, I have access to 9 Reps in MA that I have more of a say on issues that come before the US House than one in ND does.

The Bottom Line: Is proportional representation in the US House by state delegations legal? No because of a 1967 law requiring districts. Upon repeal of that law would it be Constitutional? More likely than not.

Links

Even more on the phenomenon known as Bit Coins.

Adam Davidison's pro Airline fee rant at the beginning of this Planet Money podcast (which you really should listen to the whole thing) is exactly how I feel on the matter. If I don't have to pay as much for a ticket because airline's withhold free things such as a meal, reserved seat or checked luggage (just as long as if I really want it I can still pay for it) then I am all for it.

I largely agree with Bloomberg (editorial not the mayor) that though debit fees do seem rather high the answer is not to regulate. It is the business community that should band together to bring down the fees and if that proves not to be possible then Anti-Trust laws should be used not regulation. Personally I think this is the perfect opening for the US government to start offering a basic checking account to US citizens and provide free terminals to qualifying merchants. I would assume the savings from less currency in circulation and benefits to the IRS (I would assume the IRS would have some reporting tools built into the system not to mention the ability to withdraw and deposit tax directly from the accounts) would defray most of the cost. Of course that is never going to happen. In light of that I would encourage the Federal government to encourage things such as Square.

Saudi Arabia is currently trying to stop a global recession, pacify it's people and fund a cold war against Iran. Color me skeptical.

India loses a whopping 1/3rd of it's power production to thieves and inefficiency. Oh and that's equal to 1.2% of GDP.

People will always try to get high, and the US government is foolish for trying to stop them. That last part was my opinion.

Great profile on Turkey in last weeks Businessweek. Oh and if you want to buy me a subscription, please do so.

Some Thoughts on Happiness & Politics

My initial reaction to this Businessweek story was "Really?" Mostly because I would never blame the current state of the economy on the President, good or bad. Then I realized what the article really was saying; more than anything people vote with their happiness. If times are good, people are more obliged to keep it that way, and are less likely to vote in an unknown. But when times are bad, people are more likely to take a look at what the other guy is selling. I think the best example of this was Ronald Reagan's famous line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" That line directly linked the state of one's life to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976 (to be fair unemployment was practically the same when he came in as when he went out but it was the lower numbers in between that he was judged on) and back to the present, and guess what? A whole lot of people said no.

It doesn't matter how trustworthy Barack Obama is or how cool he seems, if he is tagged with making millions of people unhappy then he stands no chance at reelection and with the current economic numbers and the inability of Washington to do anything good for the economy, one never knows.

Some thoughts on Single Currency Unions

I always used to think that being able to tour Europe while never having to exchange my money was a good enough reason to have things such as the Euro. But now having traveled abroad a bit I have come to love that one of my CCs does not charge extra for foreign transactions and that with debit cards I can pull out exactly how much I want for a very marginal fee (both receive the prevailing exchange rate of the day).

In lieu of the European Debt crisis and with non-Euro EU countries apparently doing great, I'm starting to wonder do the pros outweigh the cons in regards to single currencies? Should we be going in the opposite direction? Would Arizona and Massachusetts benefit from different currencies? Probably, though I'm not actually advocating that. What I am saying is that in order for a single currency to work you need to collaborate on everything else; wages, business practices, tax rates, bank regulations, etc. If you can't do that then you should forgo the single currency and focus more on making currencies easier to exchange so as not to confuse the consumer.

Links for the Weekend

It appears that Italy is really an ass backwards country and Silvio Berlusconi only made that worse. I highly recommend that you read the entire report on Italy if you have the time and the Economist subscription (if you don't and still want to read it let me know).

I am a supporter of anything that tries to eliminate the need for cash and at the same time looks to reduce the amount siphoned off by the financial sector. Here is the practical way of doing it and here is the revolutionary way. The practical way is very enticing from a personal business stand point where as Bitcoin strike me as a pyramid scheme / penny stocks.

You know what scares me? That politics and not highly respected economists determine our fiscal and monetary policy.

Suddenly that investment in drones and not pissing off Saudi Arabia is starting to make a whole lot of sense.

This is why I don't put "cases" on my electronics and nor would i cover up the front of my vehicle

This (and the rest of the articles done in conjunction with NPR Planet Money) is why I will be reupping my Wired subscription.

I always wondered why we didn't put giant solar projects in the middle of the desert.

I want all states to get on this non-partisan election bandwagon California is currently leading.

You know you read an old man newspaper (or one with a good sense of humor) when they explain the definition of 'lulz" and "script kiddie".

Some Thoughts on, well, Thoughts

You may or may not have noticed that I have taken an interest as of late in the growing pains and the potential growing pains that China is, or is going to start, experiencing. People love to report on the rise of China in absolute economic terms (second largest economy, largest holder of reserves, etc) but hardly do we ever hear about what the repercussions of those staggering economic terms mean. Yes we heard about the air quality problems durring the Olympics and yes people love to talk about their large population but it is still a forgone conclusion that we will all be speaking Mandarin come the turn of the century.

Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that China will not be the worlds largest economy, that is going to happen, the numbers dictate as much. When? I have no clue. But I can tell you it is not going to be smooth sailing. China has many problems going forward; an unsustainable aging population, far too many more males than females, restive minority popilations, ubiquitous corruption, no government accountability, horrendous environmental standards, and a growing gap between the rich and poor, just to name a few. China is going to hit bumps, HUGE bumps, in its run to being a fully functional world power and what that will bring for the rest of us we don't know.

And that's to say nothing of India, the Arab Spring, the industrialization of an entire continent (Africa), Latin Americas rise, the relegation of America to just normal, and Europe's own stagnation/population problems.

We think we know what our world is like but in actuality we have no clue, the status quo is now rapid and unpredictable change. Information about disasters and social upheaval are delivered to us all within minutes not hours and not days of when they happen.  Governments no longer can control like they used to. Power is shifting.

It is, in my opinion, an evening out (or as Thomas Friedman would say, flattening) of the teams. Weaker teams are gaining while the more powerful ones are dealing with their age, but in the end they are all going to end up on the same level more or less. Black and white together make gray. All the colors of the rainbow together make brown.

When? I have no clue.

-------

A programming note:

I am no longer going to do breakdowns of magazines I read. I'm going to try and write about the topics and articles as they come to me and if I don't get to talking about them specifically I'm just going to dump the links on you over each weekend. If that works, great, if not, then I'll just try something else.

Links! Links! Links!

I have neglected you all but I promise not to once the nightmare that is playoff hockey ends Wednesday night. I plan on getting some thoughts on The Economist up this week (maybe tomorrow) now that I'm not listening to so much George R.R. Martin. In the meantime here are a bunch of links:

Want my thoughts on Rep Weiner? Look no further. I just so happens I sometimes answer via Ezra Klein's finger tips.

We should not have phone numbers any more they hold no relevance to what they are for anymore, we should just have handles.

Shocking: The Post Office is antiquated and loses money.

The EU may be struggling at the top but it still works well as a carrot.

Dictators really don't fool anyone with their silly games.

I still love my trains because it uses less actual infrastructure but anything that brings us closer to a world like in Minority Report is AOK in my book.

Why don't we do this all ready?

Some Thoughts on Who the Voters Will Blame in 2012

Not really all that relevant to the story but Is Rick Scott's zeal/ineptitude going to effect the 2012 election in Florida even though he is not on the ballot? His approval rating as of the end of March was 29% and if memory serves me correctly even his party turned on him over his rejection of high speed rail money. A lot has been made of what swing states with high unemployment (Florida's is over 10%) will do when it comes to the Presidential elections but nothing seems to have been made of who is to blame in these swing states. May Barack Obama get a pass because Floridians blame Rick Scott for their woes? In WI I'm sure Mr. Obama could get a pass on a lot of things simply because Scott Walker, the most visible Republican in the state, is not well liked either, not to mention what a certain Representative from WI has done to single handedly diminish GOP 2012 chances. . Of course this is all subject to change and I could be completely wrong but I think this is something that is going under reported and would love to see some polling on it.

Podcast's of the Week

Planet Money: The Internet and Music
I was very disappointed in the lack of imagination shown on the part of the music experts in this story. They insisted that the internet was not going to work for music and would only help those lucky few. The only problem is that they were trying to tie it into the current label based industry, an industry that does not seem to be the preferred or sustainable method.

Why does it need to continue that way? Do retailers still use large swaths of middle men and warehouses or did they develop just in time delivery systems to cut cost? Do companies still need to be locate
Labels need to be consultants, which I think Alex touches on briefly at the end of the podcast.

Planet Money: Do We Need the IMF?
Why was the IMF created? What does it do? Do we need it? Look no further.

Short answer: We don't know
Long answer: If it didn't exist we would not create it but since it does we might as well use it.

Fresh Air does Area 51
Looking for a definitive history of Area 51? Then look no further. Want borderline crack-pot theories based on anonymous sources? Also look no further.

Programming Note

Due to a wonderful vacation over the weekend I found myself unable to read/listen to this weeks Economist. That of course doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a quick perusal and pick out a couple to read. At a glance I would go with the briefing on Nigeria and the Special Report on Australia. The new issue comes out today so I should be back on schedule next week.

This is not related at all but it appears Yemen is falling apart. If this doesn't resolve itself soon I don't see how Saudi Arabia does not get involved.

Some Thoughts on Digital Communications

It is a well believed and respected notion that the Internet makes work and life easier. I am not here to dispute that fact, I'm typing this out on my phone on an airplane. But the difference is some things can never be replicated perfectly by advancements in technology regardless of how long we try to develop it.

For example, video conferencing has made connecting with colleagues, contractors and loved ones much easier. Checking in on projects doesn't require a flight halfway around the world and long trips for business does not need to mean radio silence between a family.

Though technology does make it easier the problem is things aren't invented in boardrooms, brilliant ideas don't come about solely at ones desk and physical intimate contact can not be replicated over video chat.

Executives need the retreats to better work with each-other, innovators need that casual setting of a bar to spitball ideas and everyone needs to come home to their spouse and tussle the hair of their children. Technology can't replicate that now and probably never will.