5 ms·

That would be like cutting off an arm because it is bleeding. Here's an alternative off the top of my head. Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they

That would be like cutting off an arm because it is bleeding. Here's an alternative off the top of my head. Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator.

zeveb 11y ago
> Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator. So, we'd be ruled by American Idol winners? That doesn't seem like an improvement.
- sharkmerry 11y ago
  I believe american idol gets more than one vote a person, so it is only representative of those that spam votes
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Also I'd like to add that I am not saying the plan I proposed is necessarily good. It is only at least as good as the proposal to split California. Speaking of elections and democracy, we have more problems when it comes to state and local governments. At least many people can name who they'd like to vote for POTUS and some can even name their state senators. Given this, I think it is ridiculous to say that state legislators get to decide replacement for US Senators. I am also not a big fan of the way we do things in the house. As an elected House member of District n of the great state of X, how do I approach any legislation? What's best for the nation is not always what's best for the businesses in state X and definitely what's good for the nation isn't always what's best for the businesses in district n. If I am supposed to look out for the whole nation, not just people in a particular district, why am I being voted in by just people in a particular district in a particular state? If I am supposed to look out for just my district, is this the best way to look out for the interest of my district? Anyone with one ounce of naivety removed from them can easily see that although all of our House members and Senators are supposedly equal, some are more equal than others (and not just because we have two major political parties).
- tormeh 11y ago
  Interesting. You could have one house with 33-past-the-post and one with proportional representation, though I guess the difference would be more meaningful if it was less than 33. Another thing that would be interesting would be choosing the government by first-past-the-post and the parliament by proportional representation, preferably in the same election, i.e. proportional representation with no coalitions allowed.
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
Why not use approval voting? Why not use mixed-member proportional districts drawn with a shortest-splitline algorithm?
- ClayShentrup 11y ago
  You're clearly more educated on electoral systems than those who'd entertain the notion of using some novel system invented off the cuff by someone without expertise in social choice theory. Hats off.

zeveb 11y ago

> Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator. So, we'd be ruled by American Idol winners? That doesn't seem like an improvement.

sharkmerry 11y ago
I believe american idol gets more than one vote a person, so it is only representative of those that spam votes
- newjersey 11y ago
  Also I'd like to add that I am not saying the plan I proposed is necessarily good. It is only at least as good as the proposal to split California. Speaking of elections and democracy, we have more problems when it comes to state and local governments. At least many people can name who they'd like to vote for POTUS and some can even name their state senators. Given this, I think it is ridiculous to say that state legislators get to decide replacement for US Senators. I am also not a big fan of the way we do things in the house. As an elected House member of District n of the great state of X, how do I approach any legislation? What's best for the nation is not always what's best for the businesses in state X and definitely what's good for the nation isn't always what's best for the businesses in district n. If I am supposed to look out for the whole nation, not just people in a particular district, why am I being voted in by just people in a particular district in a particular state? If I am supposed to look out for just my district, is this the best way to look out for the interest of my district? Anyone with one ounce of naivety removed from them can easily see that although all of our House members and Senators are supposedly equal, some are more equal than others (and not just because we have two major political parties).
tormeh 11y ago
Interesting. You could have one house with 33-past-the-post and one with proportional representation, though I guess the difference would be more meaningful if it was less than 33. Another thing that would be interesting would be choosing the government by first-past-the-post and the parliament by proportional representation, preferably in the same election, i.e. proportional representation with no coalitions allowed.

thescriptkiddie 11y ago

Why not use approval voting? Why not use mixed-member proportional districts drawn with a shortest-splitline algorithm?

ClayShentrup 11y ago
You're clearly more educated on electoral systems than those who'd entertain the notion of using some novel system invented off the cuff by someone without expertise in social choice theory. Hats off.