The Penn State Student Activity Fee Board, its members and composition

At Penn State each campus has a student activity fee(SAF). These are funds that every individual student pays into for campus events and activities. Currently at Mont Alto the fee is around 82-85 dollars. Each year Mont Alto's student activity fee normally stands around 180,000$.

There is a University Student Activity Fee Board that legislates policy, rules and regulation on how the money can be spent across the campuses. Currently some rules that were created and enforce by the board include the prohibition of paying for wages and salaries. The SAF can also not be used to pay for programs that all students do not have the oppurtunity to particapate in.

This board is compromised of 13 members. These include: The Vice President of Student Affairs, The Director of Union Student Activities, The Director of Student Services, A Director of Student affairs, a University Faculty senate member, Four Commonwealth campus students including the President, two University Park students including the President, The Student Government President of the Graduate schools and the chair of the University Park allocation committe.

8 students and 5 administrators=13 members.

7 votes are needed to pass a motion. The composition of this board is debated and semi controversal. University Park has 45,000 students but only 2 votes on the board. All of the commonwealth campuses I,e. Mont Alto, Altoona etc.. Have 35,000 students and 4 votes. Some argue that the strength in the board is not proportional. Others argue that, student money should not be spent by faculty members and that no administrators should be on the board.

What are your thoughts? And furthermore, do you feel as if commonwealth campus students have to much power on the board?  Should adminstrators be on the board?

Posted for Hannah

Summary for Banzhaf Voting System

By: Hannah Eisenberger

A couple weeks ago we learned about Banzhaf Voting System. I am going to explain the steps that you have to do to complete a problem. First you have to determine all the winning coalitions. You have to determine if any of the votes can win the election by itself. For example [6:4,3,2]. 4,3, or 2 cannot be equal to or have more than 6. However 4 and 3 do, 4 and 2 do, and all three of them together have enough to be equal to 6 or more. Step two is to determine the critical players in each winning coalition. To figure out if A (4), B (3), and C (2) is critical or not count the number of votes the coalition has without each other (A, B, or C). Back to the combinations from step one A and B both are critical because if one of them leaves then they won’t win. Same with A and C. In A, B, and C only A is critical because the coalition still wins if B leaves or if C leaves.  The next step is to find the number of times A, B, and C is critical total. So in this case its 5 times. Step four is to find how many types EACH A, B, and C are critical. A is 3, B is 1, and C is 1. Therefore the final step is to put these into fractions. So A is 3/5, B is 1/5, and C is 1/5.

Wednesday, April 10 - In class we discussed Project 3 - since no one completed correctly we're allowed to redo Project 3 and turn it in next class.  We also discussed the reading/questions for Baker vs Carr. 

A group of appellants - anyone qualified to vote in the state of Tennessee - brought a suit against the State of Tennessee alleging that the State failed to properly classify/represent the voters in each county because the state never reapportioned the counties - even though the populations of each county drastically changed since the original apportionment. A lot of the city counties experienced substantial growth and were not represented adquately in the General Assembly.

The original case was dismissed by a middle District court, but after being reviewed by the Federal court it was decided that the case was dismissed in error.  The Federal Court stated that it was in the State's jurisdiction and therefore they couldn't make a final ruling, but they did say, basically, that the appelants had a justifiable case and that they should be entitled to a trial and decision. Justice Brennan also stated in his opinion that District court should vote consistently with the Federal Courts findings, which were that the State should reapportion the counties based on a new census count of the counties. He listed several examples of where there was blatant disregard for the law and constitution.   Brennan also listed out several requirements on what the new apportionment should qualify each county for - including the number of representatives, number of senators, etc.

We also discussed Justice Franfurter's disagreement with Brennan.  He basically states that as long as basic legal requirements are met, that the Federal Court should leave it up to the District Courts to decide.  He states that the Federal Court is always pulled into political disputes and that it is not in their jurisdiction to weigh in on such terms, at least until there is a law broken. 

The Philosophical Implications of the Political Redisitricting Process

The Philosophical implications of the Political Redistricting Process

In class we learned about the constitutional implications and mandate of redistricting.
Baker v.Carr determined and stated that States have a constitutional obligation to redistrict to grant equal oppurtunity under the 14th ammendment.

Redistricting was used to empower new members of the state and their legislatures. The lack of redistricting in state legislatures severly disadvantages those in populous areas. In the Baker v. Carr decision, once the supreme court decision was affirmed it empowered minorities. This was acheived by enforcing redistricitng so that there growing population would equate to adequate representation.

However, recently redistricting has had a negative effect on minorities voice and representation. In 2009 Republicans in the VA house of represenatives won the re-drawing of district lines 20-19.  This granted them the ability within constitutional lines to remake the district.

Republicans argued that this increased the number of predominately Black districts from 5-6. However, Democrats argued that the grouping and removal of blacks from other districts diluted their overall strength because they were essentially removed from a dozen districts.

Redistricting is definitely necassary but it is important to be aware and notice its political implications.

How do you all feel about its effect on the Democratic proccess?

Extension 4/3/13

I found this unique entry someone wrote about how there could be another way than to just redistricting. They go on and talk about how it can be more of a divide and conquer method for urban areas to have more  control. In 11 states there is something called redistricting commission, basically stating that elected or appointed officials focused on strictly on purposes of drafting new congressional and or state districts based on information from the Census. The effectiveness as of now is difficult though because of the growing movement of states. It does state that they have a higher propensity for standing up in court challenge compared  with legislatures, especially when considering congressional redistricting. There is a really good quote in the article that gives information of California's redistricting commission. It goes on talking about how the legislative redistricting bug kicks in and to benefit the party over the altruistic goal of benefiting the state over rides the discussions. This article also mentions on how Texas has thought about the redistricting commission before. They want this Bill called Wentworth's bill to be passed by the next redistricting, so that the "will of the voter" is fair within this Bill.

This is the website I read the information about.

http://www.concernedinsa.com/2011/09/19/redistrictingthere-is-another-way/

Summary 04-03-2013

In today’s class we discussed districting/redistricting, which is the process of dividing a state up into districts for the purpose of representation.  We saw that while all districts had to have the same population, not all districts had to be the same shape.  In order to determine how many people should be in each district you have to find the ideal district size.  You do this by taking the total population and dividing it by the number of districts that you want.  If there are 100,000 people in a district, for example, that is the number of people a representative represents.  There are four desirable features a district should have.  First, it should be contiguous.  This means that districts should be in one piece instead of scattered into a bunch of little pieces across the state.  Second, a district should be convex.  In order for a district to be convex it must have no dents in its shape.  Third, districts should respect geological boundaries.  Examples of these include rivers and mountains.  Fourth, districts should respect geopolitical boundaries such as city limits and county lines.  We also learned about gerrymandering, which is when districts are drawn up in ways that benefit a certain politician or political party.  The term was named after a New York politician named Gerry, who drew up a district in the shape of a salamander.  This act caused scandal, and a case against it was brought to the Supreme Court who did not say it was illegal, but did not approve of it either.  The Baker v. Carr case was also discussed in which residents of urban districts in Tennessee felt that their vote was being debased because rural districts with smaller populations had the same number of representatives as them.

Extension for 3/23

Weighted voting systems are voting systems based on the idea that not all voters are equal. Instead, it can be desirable to recognize differences by giving voters different amounts of say (weights) concerning the outcome of an election. This is in contrast to normal parliamentary procedure, which assumes that each member's vote carries equal weight. This type of voting system is used in everything from shareholder meetings, where votes are weighted by the number of shares that each shareholder owns, to the United States Electoral College. This typer of voting has been used elsewhere in the world throughout history.

The Roman assemblies provided for weighted voting after the person's tribal affiliation and social class (i.e. wealth). Rather than counting one vote per citizen, the assemblies convened in blocs, with the plurality of voters in each bloc deciding the vote of the bloc as an entity. Men of certain tribes and a higher social standing convened in smaller blocs, thus giving their individual vote the effect of many poor citizens' votes. In the Plebeian Council, where only the plebs could participate, these effects were somewhat relaxed, thus making the decision to grant its decisions the full force of law controversial.

In several Western democracies, such as Sweden weighted voting preceded equal and universal suffrage, as well as women's suffrage, to different extents. In Sweden, universal and equal male suffrage to the lower house was introduced by Arvid Lindman's first cabinet, while voting for city and county councils, which indirectly decided the composition of the upper house, was graded along a 40-degree scale. Certain corporations also had votes of their own, thus multiplying the political strength of its owners. Weighted voting was abolished in Nils Eden's reforms of 1918-19, when female suffrage was also introduced.

Extension 3/20

             Just a little history lesson on our voting techniques  that we currently use today.  The Australian ballot also called secret ballot, is the system of voting in which voters mark their choices in privacy on uniform ballots printed and distributed by government or designate their choices by other secret means.  Victoria and South Australia were the first states that introduced secrecy of the ballot in 1856, and for that reason the secret ballot is referred to as the Australian ballot.

            The system had then spread to Europe and the United States to meet the growing public and parliamentary demand for protection of voters.  In the United States the Australian ballot system was widely adopted after the presidential election of 1884.  This was the election that came very close in votes and the deciding state was New York.  The winner was democrat Grover Cleveland.  He was the first democrat to win an election since 1856, before the American Civil War.

                Voting by the Australian ballot usually takes place in a prescribed manner.  The voting boxes are required to be a certain dimension and closed.  The containers are examined before the poll begins and obviously cannot be opened until the count begins.  The voter then marks a ballot, in a special booth, and (after the voter’s right to vote has been verified) the vote is placed inside the container.  If you have voted before than this is not something new to you.  I found it very interesting how the secrecy of voting became, and we the U.S. did not come up with this idea.  Like most things in the United States we adopt it from another country.

An Extension of Different Voting Methods

Posted for Whitney:

Today in class we learned about three different types of ways to evaluate votes. Weighted voting is a system where different voter’s votes are worth different amounts. A dictator is a voter who has the only vote that counts. A dummy is a voter who’s vote does not count. A weighted voting system has a quota. That is the number of votes needed to win or pass a motion and the weights of all the votes in the system. Dictators have all the power and dummies have none. There is also a power index.  A power index assigns a number to each voter that measures the amount of power that voter has in that system.

In 1961, In Southern Rhodesia they used the weighted voting system called cross voting. This system used two types of voters;  A rolls and B rolls. The A rolls were made up of individuals with European decent that lived in the African country.  The B rolls were made up of Native Africans. There were sixty-five total parliamentary seats.  At the conclusion of the election despite there being more Native Africans in Rhodesia the A rolls elected fifty out of sixty-six parliamentary seats. There were also a special group of voters. They were one thousand tribal leaders. They elected eight seats. In despite of the huge population of Native Rhodesians, they were left with the remainder of the few parliamentary seats.

This is an example of weighted voting because the A rolls votes disproportionately weighed more than the B rolls. The tribal leader’s votes also outweighed the B rolls. Do you think this is a fair system of voting?  

3/13 Summary

Posted on behalf of Hannah:

In class we learned about weighted voting. Weighted voting is a voting system in which not all voters’ votes count the same. A weighted voting system is expressed in numbers as a list. There is a quota. A quota is how many votes are needed for a motion to pass. The weights of the voters in the system are how many votes each has. For example [3: 3, 1, 1] 3 is the quota and 3, 1, 1 are the votes. 3 is the dictator because that’s the only vote that counts. The other numbers are dummy voters because they don’t count. In this example [8: 5, 3, 1] there is no dictator because no voter has enough votes to decide the election. Voter C (1) is a dummy because no matter how A and B vote, Cs vote will never matter. In this example [9: 5, 3, 1] there is no dictator or dummy voter. Everyone has the same power which is called an unanimous consent system. It will only pass if all voters have the same vote. The second topic that we learned about is Shapely-Shubik Power Index. A Power Index assigns a number to each voter in a system. The number indicates how much power that voter has in that system. This Power Index uses the idea of         roll-call vote (a vote in which each voter is called on to vote in some order). With this power index we consider every possible order in which the voters in the system could vote, and then we see which other voter casts the pivotal vote (the vote that decides the election). 

Extension_3-13-13

The Banzhaf Power Index

Tallying votes when the stakes are high is always going to be a complicated process.  Weighted voting is one of the better methods for obtaining the fairest outcome.  We’ve explored the current method, Shapley-Shubik index, which measures power by the number of different permutations in which each voter has the pivotal vote. 
 
A previous voting index used was the Banzhaf power index.  Instead of looking at the number of permutations, the Banzhaf method looks at the number of coalitions which a voter is critical.  A coalition is defined as a group of voters who all agree to vote a certain way to have a motion blocked or passed.  The Banzhaf method counted the critical voters – a voter who, if he/she changed their vote from yes to no, would cause the coalition to lose. The voter power is measured as the fraction of all swing votes that voter could cast. To calculate the power of a voter using the Banzhaf index, you would list all the winning coalitions and then count the critical voters in each.

An example of the Banzhaf method was the 2000 election when Bush-Cheney ran against Gore-Lieberman.   The Bush-Cheney team won with 271 electoral votes – only one vote over quota.  This means that almost every voter in the Bush-Cheney coalition was a critical voter. This is important because even the state with the smallest weight would still have a high amount of power in the 2000 election because they were a critical voter in that coalition. 

Summary from class Feb 13 2013

Today in class we covered another method of Apportionment called The Huntington-Hill Method.  This method was adopted until 1941 after several methods by several different politicians(in some case their own) failed to fix the problem.  I mean I can see how this confusion was going on with the addition of new states joining the Union after the Civil War and in fact at each census the population would change resulting in changes + or - for some states.  But the states would end up trying to sue or declare it unconstitutional but nothing ever really got anywhere.  So there are 435 seats in the house 200 held by Democrats, 232 by Republicans, and 3 vacant. 
The Huntington-Hill Method has the same first three steps as the Hamilton method.  
1.Find the total population 
2.Calculate the ideal district size, also known as the Standard Divisor: total population ÷ house size
3.Calculate the Quotas: state population ÷ standard divisor
But after that things start to get a little complicated and steps cant be skipped.
4.Then we find each states upper quota in which we round up, then each states lower quota in which we round down.
5.Then we take the geometric mean of each states upper and lower quota.
6.After that we then create a tentative apportionment as follows.  If the quota is less then Q* then we use the lower quota.  If the quota is greater than or equal to Q* use the upper quota.
7.Sometimes we might still have a seat to give out.  So lets find out who would get the seat.  Calculate the critical divisor for each state.  Remember if there are too many seats divide the state population by the geometric mean of the states tentative apportionment N and N-1.  If there are too few seats, do the same thing but use N and N+1.
8.If the tentative apportionment is too large the state with the smallest critical divisor loses a seat.  If the tentative apportionment were too small the seat with the largest critical divisor would gain a seat.
9.You may still need to do some work if the correct house size still hasnt been achieved.  We would recalculate the critical divisors of the states whose apportionment has changed and repeat the process.

Extension-- Huntington-hill method of apportionment

We first learned the simple method of Hamilton for apportionment, well at least simple compared to the die hard method created by Huntington and Hill. However they are both similar due to the first three steps. They are; find the total population, calculate the ideal district size, and calculate the quotas. Simple right? For that part yes, it gets much more difficult. From there you must find each states upper quota and lower quota then find the geometric mean. Then you create a tentative apportionment and calculate the critical divisor for each state. So on and so on.

Edward Vermilye Huntington was a great mathematician of his time. He spent most of his career at Harvard. During world war one he would actually create important statistics for generals of the army. It was among that time when he learned of the apportionment ideas of Joseph A. Hill. He began to study and revise Joseph's thoughts. He then came up with a method he referred to as "the method of equal proportions" otherwise known as the Huntington-Hill method. This is the current method used in congress today to decide how many seats each state receives. It was signed into law the year he retired from Harvard, November 15th, 1941.

After researching methods such as Webster's, Dean's, and Jefferson's, I believe this method shall be used for a very long time. Although great, not perfect. There were many extensive debates about which method to use. This went on for a long time at the beginning of the 20th century until the speaker of the house, Nicholas Longworth, suggested a team of mathematicians be sent out to find the right method. They then found Huntington's to work the best, thus the current method being used.

Extension-Feb-7-2013

In class we discussed Hamilton's method of apportionment. This method is mostly used to decide how many seats are given to the House of Representatives. While it has its flaws it is widely accepted by most of the US. However, there are more methods of apportionment other than Hamilton's.

One such method is Jefferson's method. This method is similar to Hamilton's and follows the same guidelines up until the numbers are rounded down to the lower quota. If the total number added up by the lower quota is not correct, by trial and error, find a "modified" district size. When the state size is divided by the new district size and rounded down the number must be equal to the modified district size. In short, the number of seats does not change, it is the district size that must be changed. The only problem this method is said to have is the fact that it violates the Quota Rule. I tried to understand what the Quota Rule was, but came up with nothing. Perhaps Kira will touch on this next class.

There are multiple other forms of apportionment that have the same problem as Jefferson's. While Hamilton's method has more than one, these other methods only violate the Quota Rule. Maybe we should look into using another type of apportionment in order to select seats for Representatives.

An extension of Hamiltonian apportionment

  Extension 2-6-2013



In class the apportionment was discussed. Apportionment is the procedure through which representation in congress and other democratic bodies are used. The method we discussed was Hamilton’s method (named after Alexander Hamilton). While at first glance the method looks fair, pragmatic and democratic we notice an incredible flaw.

 Who could believe that a state could gain a seat(s) by actually losing citizens from its district? Well this is quite possible and does happen rarely under the Hamilton method. This travesty is named the Alabama paradox. The paradox is named after Alabama because that is the state in which it first occurred. The constitution demands that we use apportionment in the status quo, through the Hamilton method. No, it does not say Hamilton method in the constitution even though he is accredited with the method in the document. This was first discovered after reading the 1880 census, I always wonder if it were noticed prior.

 Uimately, I am a firm believer in this imperfect, normally consistent method. It works, and reflects demographic trends accurately for the most part. Are you all in favor of Hamilton’s method or do you disagree? Remember that if you do you should provide a pragmatic alternative that answers the criticism of the method.

Extension 01-30-2013

When talking about apportionment in our last class we mentioned the United States’ House of Representatives as an example.  There are of course other countries which have to deal with apportionment in their legislatures.  One of these countries is Canada.  The Canadian parliament consists of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Queen.  Only the House of Commons is elected by the people of Canada.  The Senate members come into office by the recommendation of the Prime Minister.  The Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor General, who is chosen by the Queen based on the advice given to her by the Prime Minister.  When the Queen is in Canada she “performs many important ceremonial duties”.

Since the only elected body is the House of Commons, I will focus on them.  In order to be elected to the House of Commons one must get the most votes in her or his constituency, which is similar to the term district.  A candidate can win an election “even if he or she gets less than half of the total votes”.  This indicates that the U.S. is not the only nation that uses the Plurality method of voting.  There are 308 seats total in the House of Commons.  These seats “are distributed roughly in proportion to the population of each province and territory”.  Bigger population equals more seats in the House of Commons.  Additionally, “Every province or territory must have at least as many Members in the Commons as it has in the Senate”. 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/GuideToHoC/index-e.htm

   

Class Summary 1-30-13

In today's class, we discussed and went over what exactly Apportionment is. Basically, it means splitting up anything or distribution of something. An example of this would be the seats of Congress. We talked about how it can be among different parties. It can also usually be based on proportionality. One big problem with it though as we discussed is how to round off when dealing with apportionment.

We talked and explained an example of how if two people had to split up a car between seven days. But since seven is an uneven distribution between two people it would not work out. This is because someone would get the car extra days than the other person depending on who paid more for it. So there for you would not know how to choose. A big question also asked is which one is always least unfair?

We also learned and discussed a certain method called Hamilton's Method of Apportionment. For this basically, there is five different steps when trying to figure it out. You have to find the Total Population of the people and say there is five hundred people for fifteen seats. Secondly you have to divide total population by the number of seats. You would get a number and then have to divide the population of each place by the district size. One you get another number you next have to round down and if there is not enough you have to add extra seat with place with largest decimal part until you have desired size you would need.

Extension 01-16-13

We talked about the "Pareto Condition" and "Condorcet System" this class, so I'm going to give a example from history that this didn't occur. During the US presidential race in 1824, a four-way stalemate between John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford, and occurred in the Electoral College. Jackson had the majority of both the College and the popular vote, but due to the voting requirements for the  College, he didn't have enough votes to be declared the winner. The top three candidates were sent to the House of Representatives for them to have the deciding vote and Henry Clay, being forth place, was left out. However, since he was Speaker of the House and had just enough electoral support to swing the election, he managed to get Adams, the 2nd place candidate, to become the 6th President of the United States, in exchange for becoming Secretary of State and (as the last four presidents, including Adams, held the Secretary position before the election) the likely winner of the next election.

Needless to say, this did not go over well with Jackson and his supporters. The election was declared "The Corrupt Bargain" in which Clay sold his votes for personal gain. This, coupled with a rather brutal (even by today's political standards, if not more so) mud-slinging battle between Adams and Jackson during the election, left a grudge in Jackson that wouldn't leave him even after he won the next election. In fact, his departing words after two terms in office as President were "My only regrets were I didn't shoot Henry Clay and hang John C. Calhoun!" (Calhoun had earlier tried to start a rebellion in South Carolina, which would have made the Civil War take place 40 years earlier if it had succeeded). This election also shows the "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives" in that candidate B (Adams) went from non-winner to winner because of Clay's supporters changing their vote to him.

Class Summary 01.16.13

In class we discussed the Condorcet system method of voting.  The way this system works is by having voters choose a candidate who would beat every other candidate in a head-to-head, two way race.  A Condorcet winner is the candidate most voters choose over all the other individuals.  Not all elections will work out to have a condorcet winner.  A voting system that always elects a Condorcet
winner when there is one, can be described by the electoral scientists as a system that satisfies the Condorcet criterion. On a side note plurality fails the Condorcet winner criterion.  This method of voting can be very complicated at times.

The Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives can be interpreted as if one candidate (X) wins
the election, and a new candidate (Y) is added to the ballot, only X or Y will win the election. 
Another example; it is impossible for B to go from a nonwinner to a winner unless at least one voter reverses the order in which B and the winner (A) are ranked.  The IIA is a easy method to manipulate so its not very accurate or fair way of voting.  Also the Borda count method FAILS the IIA.

If all voters prefer one candidate (A) to another (B), then B should NOT win.  This is called a Pareto condition.
In 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved Arrow's Impossibility Theorem: when there are more than two candidates it is impossible to have a voting system that satisfies all these criteria (Pareto, IIA, Condorcet) and always produces a winner. (Except dictatorship!)

Extension 01-09-13

A preference ballot minimizes the negative traits and the results. They allow you to be able to rank your first choice, second choice, third choice, and etc. The more voters that you have that fill out the ballots will lead to a more successful result.

There have been controversies over the years with America's voting system. Currently, we use the "Old Fashion" voting system. We simply pick one person who you think is the best candidate. Having that minimum option makes people less educated about candidates in the election. There are voters who are educated about the candidates but not as many who are educated about candidates.

If we would switch to use the preference ballot for our voting system, maybe that would make a huge difference. I found some research and examples online that I found very interesting and almost shocking. The majority that I read is that our society would like to be able to use preference ballot for our elections. By using preference ballot, it pretty much forces are person to do some research on the candidates who are running for whatever office. I posted a link at the bottom to show where I got most of this information from. The link also has great examples of different ways to use the ballot preference in the voting system!

 http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/c_ballot.htm