AMPU - US House Votes

[vcczar]

This needs quick responses as it would denote a major change. 

Currently, we have the system in which a state has 3, 2, or 1 influential US Reps that are elected. This will stay. 

However, instead of each of these reps having 1 vote each, I'm thinking they should have voting power = to their delegation size. This is actually a very old rule I had. 

For instance, 

CA has 53 US Reps, represented by 3 Reps in the game. Three divided by 53 = 17.7 (rounded up to 18). This means CA-1 gets 18 votes, CA-2 gets 18 votes, CA-3 gets 18 votes. This gives them 54 votes, so the Rep with the lowest legis ability (randomized if tied) would lose a vote. Therefore, 18, 18, 17 votes respectively. 

The reason, I'm thinking about going back to this old system is because it will:

1. Make the bigger states more important in the House, which they should be. CA being tied with MI doesn't seem right. 

2. It makes more sense with the legislation that can increase or reduce the size of the US House. 

I think my primary reason for having gotten rid of it was because it was a pain in the ass to playtest on a forum. 

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

@MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 @anyone else 

[Rezi]

I would like this change.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Rezi

[jvikings1]

I like it as it reflects the Great Compromise better (equal senate; big state dominant house).

[ShortKing]

I thought this was the rule we were operating under for the 1960 playtest and it's the rule that makes most sense to me. I would like to suggest that for larger states, we add some variability in the seats' individual party preference to simulate the minority party's portion of these delegations. Even currently, two of the top GOP leadership members are from seats they would not be able to win in California or New York if every seat has the same party bias as the state it is in.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

I like this idea. It makes the game see more like our world. One area that might get a little weird after this is vote swaying. It also makes the process of vote swaying during voting more unpredictable and exciting because you could end up with someone swaying a Rep from VT with 1 vote vs someone swaying a CA Rep with 18 votes.

While we haven't gotten to this point in the 1960 playtest, I am very much in favor of this and would be willing to test it out there.

[ConservativeElector2]

I would like it.

[matthewyoung123]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This needs quick responses as it would denote a major change. 

Currently, we have the system in which a state has 3, 2, or 1 influential US Reps that are elected. This will stay. 

However, instead of each of these reps having 1 vote each, I'm thinking they should have voting power = to their delegation size. This is actually a very old rule I had. 

For instance, 

CA has 53 US Reps, represented by 3 Reps in the game. Three divided by 53 = 17.7 (rounded up to 18). This means CA-1 gets 18 votes, CA-2 gets 18 votes, CA-3 gets 18 votes. This gives them 54 votes, so the Rep with the lowest legis ability (randomized if tied) would lose a vote. Therefore, 18, 18, 17 votes respectively. 

The reason, I'm thinking about going back to this old system is because it will:

1. Make the bigger states more important in the House, which they should be. CA being tied with MI doesn't seem right. 

2. It makes more sense with the legislation that can increase or reduce the size of the US House. 

I think my primary reason for having gotten rid of it was because it was a pain in the ass to playtest on a forum. 

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

@MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 @anyone else 

Personally, I like it.  But it does raise a few questions.

1- California wasn't always super huge with population.  Will it always have 3 reps, or would the # of reps depend on the population?  So RI, DE, and WY would always have 1 Rep but CA would start with 1 and eventually have 3?

2- CA and MI tied doesn't seem right.  Since the House is based entirely on population, will you be utilizing the 10 year census data to shift the numbers of Reps?  If not, how will you determine if a state has 1, 2, or 3 Reps?  State losing Reps is a real thing and reflects real life.  Recent trends have states like NY & PA losing reps to states like NC and TX.

3- All Reps will not be created equal and for the big states, but 3 Reps doesn't seem to be enough.  A SD Rep, or WY Rep will have...1 vote and a CA Rep will have 18.  But I agree there doesn't seem to be a good alternative unless you increase the Reps for the big states (maybe a sliding scale 1-5 Reps for a state).  The other issue you run into is, using CA as an example, there are 42 Democrats and 10 Republicans and 1 unfilled.  Using your math above, the Republicans should get at least one of those Reps, so they would get 17 votes instead of 10, clearly over represented.  But if the Dems have all 3, then 10 GOP seats are lost and are underrepresented.  If you use a 4 or 5 Reps, it becomes a little more equal.  4 Reps means 13 votes each, using 5 Reps, each gets about 10-11 votes.  Right where it should be.

 

 

[MrPotatoTed]

15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This needs quick responses as it would denote a major change. 

Currently, we have the system in which a state has 3, 2, or 1 influential US Reps that are elected. This will stay. 

However, instead of each of these reps having 1 vote each, I'm thinking they should have voting power = to their delegation size. This is actually a very old rule I had. 

For instance, 

CA has 53 US Reps, represented by 3 Reps in the game. Three divided by 53 = 17.7 (rounded up to 18). This means CA-1 gets 18 votes, CA-2 gets 18 votes, CA-3 gets 18 votes. This gives them 54 votes, so the Rep with the lowest legis ability (randomized if tied) would lose a vote. Therefore, 18, 18, 17 votes respectively. 

The reason, I'm thinking about going back to this old system is because it will:

1. Make the bigger states more important in the House, which they should be. CA being tied with MI doesn't seem right. 

2. It makes more sense with the legislation that can increase or reduce the size of the US House. 

I think my primary reason for having gotten rid of it was because it was a pain in the ass to playtest on a forum. 

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

@MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 @jvikings1 @anyone else 

Agreed.  Cal recently pointed out to me that this was supposed to be the rule all along, and I had missed that. Haha.  We had a long debate on whether it mattered -- he successfully proved to me that it absolutely did, or else the House was just the same as the Senate. ha.

So yes, totally agree.  

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I thought this was the rule we were operating under for the 1960 playtest and it's the rule that makes most sense to me. I would like to suggest that for larger states, we add some variability in the seats' individual party preference to simulate the minority party's portion of these delegations. Even currently, two of the top GOP leadership members are from seats they would not be able to win in California or New York if every seat has the same party bias as the state it is in.

Yep, we've already fixed that issue.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Personally, I like it.  But it does raise a few questions.

1- California wasn't always super huge with population.  Will it always have 3 reps, or would the # of reps depend on the population?  So RI, DE, and WY would always have 1 Rep but CA would start with 1 and eventually have 3?

2- CA and MI tied doesn't seem right.  Since the House is based entirely on population, will you be utilizing the 10 year census data to shift the numbers of Reps?  If not, how will you determine if a state has 1, 2, or 3 Reps?  State losing Reps is a real thing and reflects real life.  Recent trends have states like NY & PA losing reps to states like NC and TX.

3- All Reps will not be created equal and for the big states, but 3 Reps doesn't seem to be enough.  A SD Rep, or WY Rep will have...1 vote and a CA Rep will have 18.  But I agree there doesn't seem to be a good alternative unless you increase the Reps for the big states (maybe a sliding scale 1-5 Reps for a state).  The other issue you run into is, using CA as an example, there are 42 Democrats and 10 Republicans and 1 unfilled.  Using your math above, the Republicans should get at least one of those Reps, so they would get 17 votes instead of 10, clearly over represented.  But if the Dems have all 3, then 10 GOP seats are lost and are underrepresented.  If you use a 4 or 5 Reps, it becomes a little more equal.  4 Reps means 13 votes each, using 5 Reps, each gets about 10-11 votes.  Right where it should be.

 

 

1.  It goes by the states with the highest population.  I think it starts as top 3 states have 3 reps, then later top 5 states have 3 reps, and I think it eventually reaches top 10 states have 3 reps in the modern era.

2.  Same as number one -- the most populous states have 3 named Reps each.  But those named reps each carry 1/3 of their state's House voting power.  So if Michigan has a smaller population than California, it will still have fewer House votes even if they have the same number of named Reps.

3.  Fair point for @vcczar's consideration.  Though it will never be a perfect 1-1 match, of course.  

[vcczar]

@matthewyoung123 I have a whole document that shows the progression of the US Reps sizes for each state for each era. 

[Bloot911]

I like this idea

[10centjimmy]

Only question, when a House of Representatives is established following convention, is the ceiling on reps set then? I know historically it was based on population (x number of people = 1 rep), but I'm not 100% how the game calculates it + EVs.

 

ED: I am in agreement with the proposed change. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by 10centjimmy

[matthewyoung123]

13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@matthewyoung123 I have a whole document that shows the progression of the US Reps sizes for each state for each era. 

But the most any state will ever have is 3 Reps?  Using CA as the example, it just throws off the representation some.  Using 5 for big states makes it a bit more equal (as Reps have 10-11 votes per Rep instead of 17-18), but I can understand if you don't want to go that route.

With the House sometimes very close in voting numbers, I'm just concerned that in the Max of 3 Rep per state system, a House that's historically close (say within 10 votes for 1 party or the other) won't be that close and could even have the party not in power be the majority party.  Just food for thought.  Thanks.

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

But the most any state will ever have is 3 Reps?  Using CA as the example, it just throws off the representation some.  Using 5 for big states makes it a bit more equal (as Reps have 10-11 votes per Rep instead of 17-18), but I can understand if you don't want to go that route.

With the House sometimes very close in voting numbers, I'm just concerned that in the Max of 3 Rep per state system, a House that's historically close (say within 10 votes for 1 party or the other) won't be that close and could even have the party not in power be the majority party.  Just food for thought.  Thanks.

I'd have to add too many more politicians if I did a system other than 3-2-1.  Honestly, I'd rather have the real # of reps, but I'm not adding 20,000 US Reps that aren't already in the game + candidates that almost won but didn't.

[Hestia]

Seems like a good change.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, matthewyoung123 said:

But the most any state will ever have is 3 Reps?  Using CA as the example, it just throws off the representation some.  Using 5 for big states makes it a bit more equal (as Reps have 10-11 votes per Rep instead of 17-18), but I can understand if you don't want to go that route.

With the House sometimes very close in voting numbers, I'm just concerned that in the Max of 3 Rep per state system, a House that's historically close (say within 10 votes for 1 party or the other) won't be that close and could even have the party not in power be the majority party.  Just food for thought.  Thanks.

Fair questions. Just keep in mind how quickly the game becomes ahistorical.  I mean, our first president in the 1772 playthrough was Benedict Arnold. ha.  So "But California usually had 10 Republican Reps in 1994, and now in this alternate 1994 they have 12!" won't be particularly alarming.  Haha.  (I know I'm exaggerating your argument, but it is a simulation, not a documentary).

[OrangeP47]

I'm fine with this.  I could blather on, but it's be a whole lotta words to say nothing at all that basically sums up to my first sentence.

[Willthescout7]

It adds strategy for the players, especially for Primaries and Speaker elections.

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

It adds strategy for the players, especially for Primaries and Speaker elections.

Could you elaborate on this? 

[Willthescout7]

17 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Could you elaborate on this? 

Sure:

In the primaries, you could find yourself in a heated challenge for say CA-1. That is worth a lot of house votes under this system. So everyone is eyeing it and debating throwing people into it. This could lead to a crowded primary and a higher chance of taking a bad loss and having your guy get a penalty. But the amount of votes is worth it. Should you make a concerted effort for the seat or save the guy for a different office? 

For speaker elections, you have to calculate whether you have a chance. Just because you have the most reps would no longer mean you have the most votes. Unless you can swing an alliance with another player, it gets real sketchy real quick.

 

I'm for anything that makes more strategic decisions for players.

[Vols21]

Coupled with the “McCarthy Rule” that gives the minority 1 seat and 1 swing ( which could have a slighter bias to one party based on the historical splits) in the big states (named for Kevin McCarthy who would not exist if the game was played starting in recent years), this makes sense.   By itself, it creates some gameplay issues.

Looking at our 1960 playtest, California started with all 3 reps even though historically the state was about 50-50.     That discrepancy would be more pronounced if each of the reps carried more weight.    (There is a map by year that shows the demographics by state so the research to make determination is pretty much done, just have to pull out the results and implement into game).

[themiddlepolitical]

Love this idea, +1!