Black Mamba
Member
We should just elect the president based on how many licks it takes them to get to the center of a tootsie pop
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
eBay Huckster
Member
We should elect the President based on how similar their internet handles are to "eBay Luckster"
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hm, eBay Muckster would do pretty well in that race I think.
Black Mamba
Member
Not as good as Ebay_Luckster
Qazaq, your basic and most essential observation -- that a National Popular Vote would, in this day and age, favor whatever party best appeals to urban voters -- is not wrong. In fact, that's almost inarguable.
But you've gotten in to trouble whenever you've strayed from this point. You have on several occasions implied many other things, including a suggestion that there is no objective way to measure the value of standpoints; that the only reason anyone is proposing them is that it benefits their personal interests; and that the Democratic NPV and Republican district plans represent "polar opposite" viewpoints.
Those are what have gotten you in trouble.
But you've gotten in to trouble whenever you've strayed from this point. You have on several occasions implied many other things, including a suggestion that there is no objective way to measure the value of standpoints; that the only reason anyone is proposing them is that it benefits their personal interests; and that the Democratic NPV and Republican district plans represent "polar opposite" viewpoints.
Those are what have gotten you in trouble.
I hope you don't see this as scapegoating. I don't intend to.
It's just that, this is what I see as the situation:
- The Republicans are wanting to enact these changes in only blue states. The Republicans in places like Louisiana are on record as not wanting to do this.
- I really haven't read up on it, frankly, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know, there are a handful of states that have made a pact where if enough states join it to reach 270 (or whatever the threshold is), they will all vote for the popular vote winner. And all the states in this group are blue states.
-- The Republican plan is happening when the party just lost 2 presidential elections and doesn't want to moderate.
-- The NPV picked up a ton of steam when Gore lost. And continues to have momentum in a country becoming only more and more urban.
-- Thus, both changes benefit one party systematically.
-- The current system already takes into account the population differences of the country, and allows not just states to go from red to blue as they gain population, but also from blue to red as the age and demographics of a state change. This allows states to reflect the changing nature of the electorate over-time with more distinction than a blanket-all-NPV.
-- The current system already mandates Republicans to moderate. And even though it discourages Republicans in upstate New York (someone used that example, and I went to college in upstate New York, so I GET THAT the population there feels differently than the city.)
Which is my long way of saying, I don't really know which is more "fair". Again, I'm not trying to scapegoat. I just see BOTH as unfair, regardless of which is "more" so, and that even though the EC isn't perfect, I just don't understand how the partisan gain of changing the system (which is a huge deal) is worth enduring because the electoral college has just done SUCH A HORRIBLE GODAWFUL JOB of representing the will of the people. Again, I wanted Gore to win as much as anyone, and the popular vote thing really sucks, and I think what the Supreme Court did sucks, and all that.
But there were SO MANY STATES THAT WERE CLOSE IN 2000. To make a blanket statement that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election thus the system sucks ignores that Gore was literally 2,000 votes away in New Mexico or New Hampshire or Florida and he would have been President.
jamesinclair
Banned
Youve said this multiple times....
AND IT STILL MAKES NO SENSE.
In 2004, Kerry almost lost the popular vote and won the EV vote.
You know who would have benefited? Bush.
The change only systematically BENEFITS THE REAL WINNER.
And then you say this.
I dont even.
eBay Huckster
Member
Bah, we'd all* tie for first and then force the whole thing into the House and I'd win.
*
Except for eBay_Auckster. No one likes that guy, not even Mississippi.
For Qazaq's benefit, I present a rational argument against using the national popular vote as a means of electing a president:
There are many ideas in the world which are potentially reasonable but are nevertheless minority. It is very common for these ideas, beliefs or trends to begin regionally and, if popular enough, to spread outward.
A national popular vote system would make it very hard for these minority views to be relevant to a Presidential candidate unless it had nearly 50% of popular opinion on its side. This would not be about protecting specific demographics -- protecting rural voters, for example, or black voters -- it is about protecting ideas which may not be very popular right now, but may be just all the same.
I can certainly see how electoral systems enfranchise less popular ideas, which may begin in (as an example) Vermont but which would never be noticed in a national popular vote because all that would matter would be the nation as a whole. I think protecting those ideas is something worth doing.
This post is not necessarily intended to argue against a national popular vote -- I could also argue for it -- but simply to show that an NPV isn't an obviously and clearly better system in all regards.
There are many ideas in the world which are potentially reasonable but are nevertheless minority. It is very common for these ideas, beliefs or trends to begin regionally and, if popular enough, to spread outward.
A national popular vote system would make it very hard for these minority views to be relevant to a Presidential candidate unless it had nearly 50% of popular opinion on its side. This would not be about protecting specific demographics -- protecting rural voters, for example, or black voters -- it is about protecting ideas which may not be very popular right now, but may be just all the same.
I can certainly see how electoral systems enfranchise less popular ideas, which may begin in (as an example) Vermont but which would never be noticed in a national popular vote because all that would matter would be the nation as a whole. I think protecting those ideas is something worth doing.
This post is not necessarily intended to argue against a national popular vote -- I could also argue for it -- but simply to show that an NPV isn't an obviously and clearly better system in all regards.
Thank you, I think this is well put. I had trouble stating it partly because I wanted to focus on how it affected the parties, and two because I was very hung up on how people literally felt like it was some obvious fact that NPV is "more fair".
And I think casting it as a protection of ideas than my clumsy way of saying that via the people they represent is helpful.
I added that one in later because I didn't want to forget it; and they are not really meant to be in any specific order.
Popular does not equal beneficial systematically, no, I don't see how the two are tied.
... The trend is fairly obvious. We don't need to keep having this debate. It's been repeated ad nausea.
jamesinclair
Banned
Your argument boils down to
"We need a handicap so the unpopular party has a chance to win because of arbitrarily (or devilishly planned) lines. That way they don't have to adjust their policies to what the people want, they just need to move the lines!'
Can I just add, though, that we can't act as if there isn't a very, very strong correlation between demographics and certain ideas. No, it's not about literally "just protecting black voters or rural voters" for just the hell of it, but I guess I felt like I had already made the point that regional farmers in Kansas have different interests, ideas, and need a seat at the table that shouldn't just be drowned out by the urban majority in this country.
And then everyone went all "BUTWHYNOT?!?!" and I went *facepalm*.
I mean, you can use whatever adjective you want, but they ARE partisan. I will not back down from that one bit.
WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. And the Republicans ALREADY have to basically adjust their policies, HENCE THE WHOLE POINT OF THEM TRYING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM -- SO THEY CAN AVOID DOING SO.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well specifically most of us said that NPV is more fair to voters, and over the course of the argument that got contracted to "more fair". Opiate's point (I think) is that it may not nessecarily be fair to ideas, which is of more...complicated merit. Treating individuals as identical for the purposes of voting has a fairly strong philosophical backing both in general and in the country's specific cultural history, artificially weighting things to increase exposure of certain schools of thought is on somewhat murkier ground.
Well, of the two being presented, the Republican districting system and the Democratic NPV, I certainly think the NPV is more fair, yes.
Part of the reason why people seem sensitive about this, Qazaq, is that it has inklings of false equivalencies which have plagued political discussions for some years now. I don't think the ideas are equally bad. I don't think they are equally partisan. I do think the difference matters.
Nothing is perfectly fair, but throwing all ideas away because none of them are perfect -- or implying all of them are equally bad -- is also wrong. We must choose from a variety of imperfect options, that is true. But some choices are less bad than others, and the Republican plan strikes me as particularly bad, and also particularly partisan.
Yes, this is a difference of degrees, but degrees matter a lot, here.
Black Mamba
Member
Since I've been talking about the median voter, I think this is a good time to segue into what I just wrote about for DHB regarding the median voter no longer aligning with the GOP platform and how McConnel's comment that the "era of liberalism is back" is wrong.
Whole thing here of course: http://deadheatpolitics.com/2013/01/24/is-the-era-of-liberalism-really-back/
What's striking is how in many polls the GOP median voter is starting to align with the national median voter but the GOP powers seem adamant about ignoring it.
Which is why I keep pushing on this site that they will need to suffer a devastating loss (hopefully within the next 4 years) before there is that reformation. The stage of denial can only last so long.
Also trying to get discussion away from the NPV thing as it's getting repetitive.
Whole thing here of course: http://deadheatpolitics.com/2013/01/24/is-the-era-of-liberalism-really-back/
What's striking is how in many polls the GOP median voter is starting to align with the national median voter but the GOP powers seem adamant about ignoring it.
Which is why I keep pushing on this site that they will need to suffer a devastating loss (hopefully within the next 4 years) before there is that reformation. The stage of denial can only last so long.
Also trying to get discussion away from the NPV thing as it's getting repetitive.
Techno, I keep getting frustrated with you because you keep saying these things that if you just extend one step further you realize that that's a) not quite what we're saying, no one's saying that all ideas are equally weighted, b) the whole point of making sure the ideas that manifest in different parts of the country have the opportunity to be represented in government was such a huge question (and the weight to which to give these regional ideas) that it helped result in the bicameral legislature.
Nah, I said from the beginning with regards to the EC is that no one really likes it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, I updated it to be more about weighting than equality. My overall point continues to be that I haven't heard a good argument from you as to why this weighting is a good thing, only assurances that there are people who believe that it is and that their opinions deserve to be respected. In the last few posts finally we have started to get somewhere, but I still feel like your overall argument has very vague foundations.
empty vessel
Member
What does it matter? This is a naked plea to "weigh" some votes more than others. The whole point of democracy is that the minority loses.
Moreover, there is no system that adheres to the one-person-one-vote principle that would accomplish your apparent objective of weighing conservative votes more heavily than liberal ones. Even if every state awarded electoral votes based upon congressional House districts won, the result of an election could only change if the one-person-one-vote principle were not adhered to (i.e., districts of differing population sizes) or the districts were politically gerrymandered. In short, you have simply constructed an elaborate argument advocating gerrymandering. That's where we are.
You support gerrymandering, I oppose it.
By the way, your desire to weigh rural votes more than urban ones is ridiculous in light of how tipped in favor of rural voters the current system already is. You do realize that people in Wyoming and Alaska get as many Senators as people in New York, right?
That's fair, and I, too, absolutely hate the false equivalencies of "republicans and democrats are both bad!" No, they're not.
I can't remember where I read it, I think Chris Hayes said it on TV, that one of the reason for such huge partisan differences in this time is that both sides literally don't think the other makes any sense.
That extends to this argument in how people are acting as if the Republicans are basically evil monsters for proposing what they're proposing and they're clearly villains and it's clearly a rig.
And while I think it IS clearly a rig and it IS a pretty villainous thing to do, that quote of "both sides don't think the other literally makes any sense" -- well, the Republicans proposing this don't think they're being villains. They know they are stacking the deck to help the GOP, but they ALSO, surely, have some genuine principal behind it, too. The gerrymandering shit aside, I'd compare it to being as ideologically consistent with what they might be expected to believe as pro-lifers being against abortion in case of rape and incest. How can you believe abortion is murder but believe it's okay to murder if life resulted from rape? I disagree vehemently, but it's consistent and makes sense.
The district thing DOES stack the deck, and it IS a rig because of gerrymandering, and I DON'T want to see it happen. BUT it's not as if allocating it by district to more accurately represent rural districts and enacting even more boundaries is somehow inconsistent with their belief systems -- as if it entirely appears out of thin air. (What IS out of thin air imo is the timing of it.) Just as in the same way the NPV is totally in line with what Democrats would tend to believe.
That, to me, what the merit of the idea that was being lost. And maybe it's splitting a fine too many hairs for NeoGAF, but I did want to make it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Even Opiate's argument assumes that the views which are being marginalized have an additional criteria for evaluating merit besides popularity that says that they are worth consideration, which is why the marginalization is "bad". And I believe this is the sort of thing you evaluate on a case-by-case basis and that ideas/schools of opinion should not receive this weighting based solely on their source or current status as "minority views". (After all, I know there are minority views that we all agree should not be seriously considered, ranging from the extremely bigoted to the hypothetically insane)
But that's ignoring the many other functions of democracy. "The minority loses" only scratches the surfaces. What about the competition and proliferation of different ideas? That's democratic, too.
That's not my objective.
I don't.
Lol, I don't advocate that. I think the system does an okay enough job as it does. For as many irritants as the various systems in government are (the filibuster, anyone?), the electoral college is not that bad of one.
Uh, yuppers, I do. That was the point, I believe.
Again, you're overly hung up on "bad", "worth", all these judgmental terms of ideas.
I don't think electing racists and bigots is good for the country. But in a democracy, people have the power to elect people that hold those ideals. That's the point. This is all first amendment free speech stuff. That's why getting rid of the distinctions of regions can very much diminish voices necessary for a democracy. You need the variety of ideas. And you don't stop to consider that sometimes those fringe and minority ideas are ones that come to be held by the populace at large now. They have to start somewhere.
Also to empty vessel: I also find the complaining about Wyoming and Alaska really funny. Um, hello, fucking Rhode Island? Delaware? Vermont? Vermont's pretty rural.
I'm in absolute favor of DC statehood. But give me a break here, don't whine about Wyoming, Alaska, and Oklahoma while enjoying the senators the likes of which population boom-towns like Rhode Island have given you. And look at that, Vermont manages to be both super liberal AND rural! And yet, Bernie Sanders holds ideas THAT DON'T FIT WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
empty vessel
Member
Right, it is precisely democracy that is the criteria for evaluating merit. To say that there should be another way is to say that you do not believe in or support democracy. Now, that doesn't make one wrong, and certainly people have beliefs along a democracy "spectrum," if you will, but I don't think one can claim the mantle of democracy while making this kind of argument. One is essentially arguing in favor of restraints on it.
Black Mamba
Member
It's based on votes but unfortunately for you it's through a heavily gerrymandered process. You actually would be a full member if it was based on total votes.
empty vessel
Member
No, the purpose of the Senate was most definitely not to weigh rural voters more heavily than urban voters.
Hahaha
I think this analysis is true for social issues, and I've been pleasantly shocked at how quickly gay rights has gained in approval recently, but I don't think the American center has realigned to the left much at all economically (unfortunately).
I'm still worried that, if the Republicans could manage to drop some of their dogmatic and archaic social policies, they could sweep up elections on their economic policies. In part because I don't think there's been any prominent Democratic politicians willing to push back against the old Reagenomics arguments. Obama's put some effort into pushing back against that ideology (winning an election where he ran on raising taxes on the wealthy is a good start, and a lot of the wording in his Inauguration was certainly liberal economically), but he still gives into Republican messaging on the deficit and entitlements way too easily. I realize you can't change people's minds overnight, and I think Obama's actually been decently effective at changing America's views on economic policy, but it's been progressing a lot slower than the social issues.
Black Mamba
Member
I agree that Republicans could still win on economic arguments (not that they'd be right, just that people would listen and often agree). Not on everything, like taxing the rich or cutting entitlements, but in other aspects.
But in some ways it is the reason why the GOP is in such trouble. They've built a coalition around guns, gays, and religion. A lot of GOP voters are 1 issue voters (abortion, gay rights, or gun control) and any economic argument they make is irrelevant to them and some libertarians who will vote for anyone in favor of less government than the other person. At the same time, there are a lot of people out there who either don't give a fuck about any of those social issues or believe what the current majority believes on those issues but at the same time are less likely to buy into the liberal economic arguments. However, the combination of scariness from the position on the right on those issues along with the fact that the Democrats as a matter of public policy aren't very left economically right now pushes them to vote Democrat.
To go further, if they abandon those issues (along with others like immigration), what happens to their coalition? A lot of their voters also tend to be less well-off economically and may stray towards the democrats if the social issues are off the table (over time). We've all seen how a lot of the so-called welfare is used by white, southern republicans. What ensures they stay republicans?
I'd be very curious to see how an election would turn out if social issues dominating today were irrelevant in the national discourse. I wonder if we'd see a Reaganesque win for Hillary in 2016 if that was the case or if it would stay pretty divided based on the GOP candidate's economic arguments.
I think in this recent election without race and the social issues, Obama would have won in a landslide if both parties stayed the same regarding economics and foreign policy. Obama came from a centrist position pretty much everywhere. But a more traditional left vs right argument would be interesting.
Officerrob
Banned
What the fuck happened in here? It's not election season, I'm not about to read all these damn pages!!
I don't really think this is true. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find almost ANYONE who is a "single issue voter". Sometimes certain issues absolutely outweigh everything else, I guess, but it doesn't really strike me as human -- the way you're putting it. I think more accurately, ESPECIALLY among Republican, is that those voters tend to adopt the viewpoints of the majority of the party depending on how ensconced they become in the rightwing political sphere.
I mean, some of that is obvious -- you hang around with more people of similar ideology, the more viewpoints from them you adopt -- but I think this is particularly true with conservatives given how quickly that base has rapidly adopted the talking points being given to them by right wind media that thus spreads through the base.
Black Mamba
Member
That's a lot just riding on abortion. And that goes both ways, FWIW.
Also, although I say GGR, gays/abortion really is part of religion for these republican voters.
I do think that you're right in that people tend to adopt certain beliefs as a result which is why I am so curious to see an election without the social issues driving certain people to parties.
I also tend to believe more people are single issue voters than they tend to believe mostly because they assume if you are for X you're also definitely for Y.
By single issue voter, I mean that if, for example, you are pro-choice, voter X won't ever vote for you over a pro-life candidate under reasonable circumstances.
It is an interesting thought as to what will happen to the GOP's coalition if/when gay rights, abortion, immigration, etc. are no longer issues. I expect the next new big wedge issue to be pot/the War on Drugs (I fully expect the Democrats to adopt a legalization stance within the next decade assuming support for legalization continues to grow as rapidly as it is right now), and I think that'll keep a lot of the GOP's base loyal. But absent that, I really have no idea where those voters would go without the social issues and religion.
I still find it hard to imagine them switching sides because Republicans have been so effective in channeling certain voters' racism and hatred of minorities into a hatred of welfare (even when said racists often benefit from the welfare), and as long as the Republicans are able to channel that racism and bigotry into support for their economic policies, they'll probably still remain viable even without the actual social policies front and center. Of course, as we get less and less racists that will become a less viable strategy for national elections.
While I think you are 100% right about a lot of people in general adopting the viewpoints of the majority of their party, I can also tell you there is definitely a significant amount of single issue voters. Particularly with abortion.
I live in a pretty conservative area of Indiana, and I cannot tell you the amount of times (especially during this last election), that I could sit down with a Republican voter, spend an hour talking to them, and get them to agree to the Democratic position on literally every single other issue (I even converted a couple to supporting gay marriage, ffs!), but they still wouldn't vote for Obama because of abortion. Abortion for a lot of people is what shapes all of their political views. They view it as killing babies, and therefore they cannot in any way support a candidate who is pro-choice, and they're inclined to believe anything the "baby killer" supports must be bad.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
What was the purpose of having an electoral college anyways? To just make it easier to focus campaign funds in areas that are purple?
The purpose was to limit democracy because it was still a radical idea back then and the Founders didn't entirely trust the masses. And also to placate the smaller (population wise) states who wanted more representation.
PhoenixDark
Banned
But it's the only say things will be fair!
Synth_floyd
Banned
I think if Republicans succeed in carving up the electoral college votes of several prominent states then there will eventually be a successful campaign to change the presidential election system to a straight popular vote.
Or enough states will pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to make the electoral college irrelevant. It's already halfway to being enacted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Or enough states will pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to make the electoral college irrelevant. It's already halfway to being enacted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The Librarian
Banned
I don't understand how the current system better represents minority ideas than an NPV. What examples do we have of minority views being picked up by a presidential candidate because it appealed to a small state? Aside from New Hampshire Iowa and Neveda, nobody pays attention to small states anyway.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Hate to break the current topic but I cant think of a better thread for this question.
What exactly are the republicans so upset about with this Benghazi stuff? I see them saying the American people need to know what happened and that the Obama administration is being dishonest, but I feel like everybody understands perfectly well what happened. Are they really just being shitty over the semantics of not calling it explicitly a "terrorist attack" immediately?
What exactly are the republicans so upset about with this Benghazi stuff? I see them saying the American people need to know what happened and that the Obama administration is being dishonest, but I feel like everybody understands perfectly well what happened. Are they really just being shitty over the semantics of not calling it explicitly a "terrorist attack" immediately?
kingkaiser
Member
No, at least not in progressive democracies where there are more than two parties. Just set a bar, where parties with 5% of the votes can take a seat in the Senate and your democracy will become a lot more vivid and fair towards minorities.
This guy is trying so hard to spin the "both sides are bad!!!" schtick that he should submit a link to this thread as a resume to CNN. I hear Wolf Blitzer is looking for some new staff.
They just want a foreign policy "scandal" to make the Administration look bad.
They just want a foreign policy "scandal" to make the Administration look bad.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well I'm not the one who introduced the idea of judgement of ideas, you are. Its the unspoken assumption of your entire argument: that some views becoming marginalized simply because of the size of the population that supports them is a "bad thing" we should try and prevent.
With that said, are there historical examples of this happening specifically through the election process and not gaining ground some other way, in a way that would have been inhibited by directly population proportional representation? Because at this point it sounds to me like you are the one making the vague, idealistic statements.
(also every time you bring up the first amendment doesn't make sense. I don't think I've ever read any analysis of the constitution that ties the first amendment to the representative system)
Realistically, with the current system we have, it only represents a vanishingly small percentage of the country - each election cycle, candidates are really only competing in one of like ten-twelve states (PA, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, etc), and ignoring the rest of the country, except when it comes to fundraising. So the issues that these states care about receive a disproportionately large amount of the candidates attention, and thus more national attention to the things that matter to them.
A national pure popular vote system would force a 50 state election, every time. This would seem to me to definitely be a more important gain than the potential alternative strengths of what we have now.
Arrowgigantic
Member
National vote would be awesome, too many people don't vote because they are in a solid color state, and I have the sneaking feeling that every vote counting would bring out more dem votes.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Exactly.
An amendment or each state deciding to do it on their own.
Great new blog, it will be forever bookmarked.
Just catching up on this thread, but didn't BM during the election throw out the idea of divvying out EV's per state based on the number of votes each candidate receives, thus giving one candidate the majority of EV's(instead of all EV's). So, in my home state of MS, for example, the Democrat would still get a few EV's instead of none.
I'm probably fucking this up somehow.
But yeah, great blog.
Just catching up on this thread, but didn't BM during the election throw out the idea of divvying out EV's per state based on the number of votes each candidate receives, thus giving one candidate the majority of EV's(instead of all EV's). So, in my home state of MS, for example, the Democrat would still get a few EV's instead of none.
I'm probably fucking this up somehow.
But yeah, great blog.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The electoral college/NPV qurstion raises the very basic issues with democracy. A minority voice is always going to have less influence, even a sizable one, than they might require or deserve on an issue. The electoral college was an attempt to level the imfluence of states, and designed at a time when state identity was more important then it is today. But it still does ensure that low-population states have some greater influence than they might have otherwise.
Today, there's probably more divide between urban/rural than there is among any given states. Reliably Blue states still have a large red population in the rural areas, and relaibly Red states have large a blue population in the cities. Further, many issues divide along rural/urban lines, and policy that makes sense in an urban center doesn't always work in a rural area, and vice versa.
Going to a NPV shifts weight to the urban centers. It's a change from the status quo just as much as the GOP EV-per-district is.
Today, there's probably more divide between urban/rural than there is among any given states. Reliably Blue states still have a large red population in the rural areas, and relaibly Red states have large a blue population in the cities. Further, many issues divide along rural/urban lines, and policy that makes sense in an urban center doesn't always work in a rural area, and vice versa.
Going to a NPV shifts weight to the urban centers. It's a change from the status quo just as much as the GOP EV-per-district is.
- Status