4 ms·
> Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer? Consider it a stepping stone, and the most effective first step: if you have
by talideon 10y ago
> Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer?
Consider it a stepping stone, and the most effective first step: if you have gerrymandered constituencies, you can still end up with non-proportional results with a proportional electoral system. The effect is more proportional than you'd have with FPTP, but its still open to abuse.
Ideally, you really want both non-gerrymandered constituency borders and a proportional voting system. To understand why, take a look at the Hungarian parliamentary elections in 2014 and how, even with a proportional voting system, gerrymandering and other mechanisms were used to give a non-proportional result in favour of Fidesz.
- stretchwithme 10y agoMore of a pebble. I would prefer if political units were self-organizing and not arranged by leaders at all. In Switzerland, a part of a canton can form a new canton if it prefers or merge with a neighboring canton. This rarely happens, perhaps because the current arrangement is good enough. And the incentive to take an area for granted is minimal.
- talideon 10y agoGiven the current constitutional make-up of the US, it's a stepping stone. Swiss-style federalism would be a pretty radical departure, and likely wouldn't even be constitutionally possible.