3 ms·

To me, the problem is winner-take-all districts to begin with. It all but ensures some constituents are going to be sorely disappointed. Why not consider someth

To me, the problem is winner-take-all districts to begin with. It all but ensures some constituents are going to be sorely disappointed. Why not consider something like multi-member districts? We could tune it even further by awarding variable voting power. Then the way the borders are drawn becomes far less relevant. I'm sure there are tradeoffs, but it would certainly be more representative.

labster 9y ago
Most of the arguments against this center on the fact that ranked systems would be too complex for voters to understand. Which I used to think was pure hogwash, but Americans have since proved that they can't handle even two candidates for a major office. Hint: the worst one was the one with zero government experience.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  The parent didn't mention ranked choice voting unless I read it wrong. I read them to argue in favor of multiple representatives per district. You can have that even with the current voting system. The top n candidates get the job with n > 1. There only difference is right now n = 1. That being said there is also the much simpler approval voting.
  - acjohnson55 9y ago
    Yep, you read me correctly. Approval voting is great too, but I don't know that it addresses the issue of district boundaries on its own. And to address the question of complexity from the first person to reply to me, I don't think that's a realistic concern. Basically it would work like this: you vote normally (whether singe vote, approval, ranked, or whatever), then each party gets at most the number of winners proportional to their aggregate share of the vote, with representatives chosen in order of performance.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- realusername 9y ago
  the current system is 10x more complex than a ranked system since they don't vote directly for the president at the moment.
hvidgaard 9y ago
Lets say that each state have 10 seats. Anyone can run for a seat in a state, but not in more than one state. Two or more people can form a party and have that party on the voting list with them personally on the ballot paper under that party name. (Some mechanism should prevent everyone and his mother to run for shit'n'giggles, e.g. a % of all voters signatures). Distribute the seats based on largest quotient (details need not to be understood by lay man, but it is fairly simple), and there it is all states equally represented. If people are unsatisfied with current politician, they don't have to become part of the established system to enter.
- Nokinside 9y ago
  No need to invent anything new. Correct way to get proportional representation has been already figured out. It's called d'Hondt method or Jefferson method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method Thomas Jefferson introduced the method for proportional allocation of seats in the United States House of Representatives in 1791. Victor D'Hondt published it in 1882. d'Hondt and Jefferson methods are equivalent. Only difference is the way result is calculated. d'Hondt method is used all over the world, but I Americans might feel more patriotic using Jefferson method.
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    That is what I just described.

labster 9y ago

Most of the arguments against this center on the fact that ranked systems would be too complex for voters to understand. Which I used to think was pure hogwash, but Americans have since proved that they can't handle even two candidates for a major office. Hint: the worst one was the one with zero government experience.

ajmurmann 9y ago
The parent didn't mention ranked choice voting unless I read it wrong. I read them to argue in favor of multiple representatives per district. You can have that even with the current voting system. The top n candidates get the job with n > 1. There only difference is right now n = 1. That being said there is also the much simpler approval voting.
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  Yep, you read me correctly. Approval voting is great too, but I don't know that it addresses the issue of district boundaries on its own. And to address the question of complexity from the first person to reply to me, I don't think that's a realistic concern. Basically it would work like this: you vote normally (whether singe vote, approval, ranked, or whatever), then each party gets at most the number of winners proportional to their aggregate share of the vote, with representatives chosen in order of performance.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
realusername 9y ago
the current system is 10x more complex than a ranked system since they don't vote directly for the president at the moment.

hvidgaard 9y ago

Lets say that each state have 10 seats. Anyone can run for a seat in a state, but not in more than one state. Two or more people can form a party and have that party on the voting list with them personally on the ballot paper under that party name. (Some mechanism should prevent everyone and his mother to run for shit'n'giggles, e.g. a % of all voters signatures). Distribute the seats based on largest quotient (details need not to be understood by lay man, but it is fairly simple), and there it is all states equally represented. If people are unsatisfied with current politician, they don't have to become part of the established system to enter.

Nokinside 9y ago
No need to invent anything new. Correct way to get proportional representation has been already figured out. It's called d'Hondt method or Jefferson method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method Thomas Jefferson introduced the method for proportional allocation of seats in the United States House of Representatives in 1791. Victor D'Hondt published it in 1882. d'Hondt and Jefferson methods are equivalent. Only difference is the way result is calculated. d'Hondt method is used all over the world, but I Americans might feel more patriotic using Jefferson method.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  That is what I just described.