Once again, when you have individuals, groups, or industries who want to hold onto power, influence, and control of economics. They tend to make things make sense for themselves ~~society~~.
They would, but in proportion to their actual level of support among the electorate. So they'd never hold unilateral power again is all. But then, neither would anyone else.
This scheme—proportional representation in multi-member districts—makes it very unlikely that one party would be able to hold a majority of seats. A minority party with something like 10% support would, plausibly, be able to get ~10% of the seats in congress, and thus have no incentive to become an internal faction to the Democrats or Republicans; as is the case now for say, environmental voters, or anti-abortion voters.
It practically requires that parties form coalitions, and keep their coalition happy by enacting policy that benefits their supporters. It's not a perfect system. No system is. But it's a grand sight better than what we have.
Neither major party will ever support it, of course, until voters convince them it's a choice between that and total oblivion. We're not there, yet. But the day may be coming.
…imagine an alternative world—perhaps our future—in which Kentucky is just one six-member district. Everybody votes in the same election as you do for Senate, and parties put forward lists of candidates. So Republicans put forward a list of candidates, Democrats put forward a list of candidates. Democrats get 33 percent of the seats—the two most popular Democratic candidates on that list go to Congress. Republicans put forward a list of candidates—the four most popular Republicans go to Congress.
So that’s proportional. That’s what we think of as fairness. You don’t have to draw any district lines, and candidates run on party lists, and parties get representation in Congress in proportion to the share of votes that they get—which is a very intuitive sense of fairness.
You can still do it on a district level. Most proposals are for actually districts of 3-5 candidates. So to use the Kentucky example, instead of one big district with six candidates, or six small districts of one candidate, you'd get two medium-ish districts electing three people apiece.
Most proposals also call for raising the size of the House, so districts would get a little, but not too much bigger, to keep local representation.
I can’t read the article because paywall. It sounds like it is supporting voting for parties than parties choose the representatives?
I support proportional voting, but I do not like voting for parties. I’d rank candidates.
If you rank candidates, the country/district thing is a non-issue. If you NEED a local representative, for interesting circumstances, one will win. Think Flint, Michigan or East Palestine, Ohio.
But what you really want is someone who represents farmers, or someone who represents Catholics, or someone who represents teachers. As long as these issues are more important to you, that’s who will win, proportionally.
Alternatively, we could use the system Ireland and Australia use: single transferable vote. Slightly different in that you vote for individual candidates, not parties, but still proportional and defeats gerrymandering.
It's probably got a bit more steam behind it than party-list propotional voting, since it's endorsed by FairVote and has a bill regularly introduced to Congress.
Anyone who presently has the ability to make such changes, got that ability thanks to the present system. If they change it, they are less likely to be in power any more.
I’d be for it. The counter to this is that doing it this way would let you stack candidates from one area. Eg all candidates come from NYC for the entire state of New York. You don’t get any candidates from Syracuse or Buffalo who will advocate for those areas.
Well the appeal is that it totally negates the possibility of gerrymandering. It's not a perfect solution though so I'd understand why people wouldn't got for it.
Contrary to what many believe, this would not require a constitutional amendment, and multimember districts were common in states until an act of Congress mandated single-member districts in the early 20th century. Such a solution to gerrymandering could be passed in 2028 as soon as the Dems next get a trifecta (if they have the political will to do so), and there has been a bill introduced every new session that would effect this.
You’d lose your personal representative though, which is the purpose of the system. We used to have laws that would continually increase the house of representatives as the population increased. When we started it was 1 per like 30,000, it’s now 1 per 700,000 or so. If we instantly tripled the number of members in the house it would actually combat the issue, each district would have to be so much smaller AND the money involved would be split so much it would allow normal people to shine through.
My idea for a long time has been to create a pact similar to the one for the National Popular Vote. Once states pass laws with a certain threshold of Congress represented, independent redistricting commissions would go into effect.
The fact is that Dems have suffered for years by trying to govern with integrity on this issue, and it does feel like dialing back on mutually assured destruction is the only way to solve it.
This does not stop parties from picking their voters. It moves the rule making from politicians creating districts to politicians creating candidate or party requirements. You have to address the issue at the supreme court level. The current supreme court has said they support politicians picking their voters.
It DOES stop parties from picking their voters? Anyone can register as a democrat or independent last I heard. I’m skeptical any state can disallow independents.
Ranking means it’s safe to rank the long shot you really prefer first, so there’s no incentive to vote lesser evil (except ranked last).
And the tradeoff is that noone is your representative. Actually talking to constituents becomes harder because there are more of them. Constituent services becomes harder and there's less political incentive to do so.
My answer to gerrymandering is to just have more Congressmen. More seats means many smaller districts. Many smaller districts are a lot harder to gerrymander.
LeoKitCat | 23 days ago
It’s the US we can’t ever have anything that actually makes sense
Midnightchickover | 23 days ago
It’s not that we can’t have any thing that makes sense. It just has to make sense for the existing power structures.
LeoKitCat | 23 days ago
What if those power structures don’t make sense?
Midnightchickover | 23 days ago
Once again, when you have individuals, groups, or industries who want to hold onto power, influence, and control of economics. They tend to make things make sense for themselves ~~society~~.
KderNacht | 22 days ago
You've all got guns, don't you ?
mhyquel | 22 days ago
No, but they do have more guns than people.
timshel42 | 23 days ago
The gop will fight tooth and nail to keep gerrymandering, otherwise they will never get elected again
firelight | 23 days ago
They would, but in proportion to their actual level of support among the electorate. So they'd never hold unilateral power again is all. But then, neither would anyone else.
This scheme—proportional representation in multi-member districts—makes it very unlikely that one party would be able to hold a majority of seats. A minority party with something like 10% support would, plausibly, be able to get ~10% of the seats in congress, and thus have no incentive to become an internal faction to the Democrats or Republicans; as is the case now for say, environmental voters, or anti-abortion voters.
It practically requires that parties form coalitions, and keep their coalition happy by enacting policy that benefits their supporters. It's not a perfect system. No system is. But it's a grand sight better than what we have.
Neither major party will ever support it, of course, until voters convince them it's a choice between that and total oblivion. We're not there, yet. But the day may be coming.
[OP] D-R-AZ | 23 days ago
Excerpt:
…imagine an alternative world—perhaps our future—in which Kentucky is just one six-member district. Everybody votes in the same election as you do for Senate, and parties put forward lists of candidates. So Republicans put forward a list of candidates, Democrats put forward a list of candidates. Democrats get 33 percent of the seats—the two most popular Democratic candidates on that list go to Congress. Republicans put forward a list of candidates—the four most popular Republicans go to Congress.
So that’s proportional. That’s what we think of as fairness. You don’t have to draw any district lines, and candidates run on party lists, and parties get representation in Congress in proportion to the share of votes that they get—which is a very intuitive sense of fairness.
Splashy01 | 23 days ago
But then representation is on the state level not on a county/district level.
macnalley | 23 days ago
You can still do it on a district level. Most proposals are for actually districts of 3-5 candidates. So to use the Kentucky example, instead of one big district with six candidates, or six small districts of one candidate, you'd get two medium-ish districts electing three people apiece.
Most proposals also call for raising the size of the House, so districts would get a little, but not too much bigger, to keep local representation.
eraserhd | 23 days ago
I can’t read the article because paywall. It sounds like it is supporting voting for parties than parties choose the representatives?
I support proportional voting, but I do not like voting for parties. I’d rank candidates.
If you rank candidates, the country/district thing is a non-issue. If you NEED a local representative, for interesting circumstances, one will win. Think Flint, Michigan or East Palestine, Ohio.
But what you really want is someone who represents farmers, or someone who represents Catholics, or someone who represents teachers. As long as these issues are more important to you, that’s who will win, proportionally.
macnalley | 23 days ago
Alternatively, we could use the system Ireland and Australia use: single transferable vote. Slightly different in that you vote for individual candidates, not parties, but still proportional and defeats gerrymandering.
It's probably got a bit more steam behind it than party-list propotional voting, since it's endorsed by FairVote and has a bill regularly introduced to Congress.
RueTabegga | 22 days ago
And mandatory voting with automatic registration on your 18th birthday.
jseego | 22 days ago
This is actually how most modern democracies work.
atticdoor | 23 days ago
How do you ask people with power, to give up that power?
Anyone who presently has the ability to make such changes, got that ability thanks to the present system. If they change it, they are less likely to be in power any more.
eraserhd | 23 days ago
“Things are the way they are because they got that way.” -Jerry Weinberg
atticdoor | 22 days ago
Yeah, it took a huge chain of riots before the UK fixed its rotten boroughs and gave Manchester the vote.
cawkstrangla | 23 days ago
I’d be for it. The counter to this is that doing it this way would let you stack candidates from one area. Eg all candidates come from NYC for the entire state of New York. You don’t get any candidates from Syracuse or Buffalo who will advocate for those areas.
eraserhd | 23 days ago
Why would people vote for that?
cawkstrangla | 23 days ago
Well the appeal is that it totally negates the possibility of gerrymandering. It's not a perfect solution though so I'd understand why people wouldn't got for it.
espinaustin | 23 days ago
This is stupid and misses the point entirely that republicans will never abandon their quest for unfair advantage.
macnalley | 23 days ago
Contrary to what many believe, this would not require a constitutional amendment, and multimember districts were common in states until an act of Congress mandated single-member districts in the early 20th century. Such a solution to gerrymandering could be passed in 2028 as soon as the Dems next get a trifecta (if they have the political will to do so), and there has been a bill introduced every new session that would effect this.
Tell your representatives to support it.
EclecticEuTECHtic | 22 days ago
My second favorite policy after carbon fee and dividend.
mojo276 | 22 days ago
You’d lose your personal representative though, which is the purpose of the system. We used to have laws that would continually increase the house of representatives as the population increased. When we started it was 1 per like 30,000, it’s now 1 per 700,000 or so. If we instantly tripled the number of members in the house it would actually combat the issue, each district would have to be so much smaller AND the money involved would be split so much it would allow normal people to shine through.
Emperormike1st | 23 days ago
BilliamClimptonIII | 23 days ago
They're coming for the Constitution! 2/3 Majority! Stay tuned!
SeesEverythingTwice | 23 days ago
My idea for a long time has been to create a pact similar to the one for the National Popular Vote. Once states pass laws with a certain threshold of Congress represented, independent redistricting commissions would go into effect.
The fact is that Dems have suffered for years by trying to govern with integrity on this issue, and it does feel like dialing back on mutually assured destruction is the only way to solve it.
dsaint | 23 days ago
This does not stop parties from picking their voters. It moves the rule making from politicians creating districts to politicians creating candidate or party requirements. You have to address the issue at the supreme court level. The current supreme court has said they support politicians picking their voters.
eraserhd | 23 days ago
It DOES stop parties from picking their voters? Anyone can register as a democrat or independent last I heard. I’m skeptical any state can disallow independents.
Ranking means it’s safe to rank the long shot you really prefer first, so there’s no incentive to vote lesser evil (except ranked last).
skisandpoles | 22 days ago
Can we please have more than two parties now?
username_6916 | 22 days ago
And the tradeoff is that noone is your representative. Actually talking to constituents becomes harder because there are more of them. Constituent services becomes harder and there's less political incentive to do so.
My answer to gerrymandering is to just have more Congressmen. More seats means many smaller districts. Many smaller districts are a lot harder to gerrymander.