4 ms·

Just get rid of single member districts. Replace congressional districts with proportional representation.

by ende 8y ago

korethr 8y ago
Since congressional districts were intended to be a form of proportional representation, what do you propose in their stead?
- ianai 8y ago
  Randomly assign a district to a registered voter and it changes every time they register at a new address.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    What's the point of districts then? Why not just do multiple representative at large then?
    - ianai 8y ago
      You can call up your assigned representative like the current system
- beisner 8y ago
  One of the better ways I’ve heard is multi-member districting, where you have a slightly larger district with multiple reps (maybe 3-5 representatives) where seats are partitioned proportionately for that district. Voters vote for a party, and seats are apportioned to each party in accordance with their share (with some rounding). This guarantees a result that is at least as proportional (I’d posit significantly more proportional) as the current representative system, and maintain the ‘theoretical’ locality of representation, meaning constituents still vote for people representing their small localities. There are different ways to assign representatives in proportional representation systems, but at such small scale you could have district-wide primaries where the top N finishers for that multi-member district are slotted into seats in the order in which they finished in the primaries. Unfortunately this system is still imperfect, as strategic voting can still occur l, but significantly less so than in our first past the post single-member system. Also it excludes extremely small parties (>10% of the national electorate) from influence. It’s a tough problem.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Get rid of FPTP first, since that is the worst of your problems. Multi-member districts will be an incremental improvement on top, and actually be meaningful once every vote ends up selecting a representative. With a STV system like Hare-Clarke you will likely see independents standing with very centrist platforms, with the major parties quickly scrabbling to get those centrist votes.
    - bbrazil 8y ago
      We've a STV system in Ireland, I'm not sure you'd classify our independents as centrist (by the Irish definition of centrist - by the US definition almost all our politicians are far left). Overall the system works quite well, and the proportion of representatives a party has in parliament roughly aligns with first preference votes.
      - manicdee 8y ago
        In Ireland you have had enough time for parties to trend towards the biggest chunk of votes, which is what I’m labelling “centrist” though perhaps this is really “populist” :( Naming things isn’t easy.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Get rid of FPTP first, since that is the worst of your problems No, unequal apportionment and the electoral college are the biggest problems, FPTP and single-member districts in state and federal legislatures are, in combination, just the biggest problem which isn't federally Constitutionally mandated and which can therefore be fixed with legislation at the appropriate level(s) without federal Constitutional Amendment. > With a STV system like Hare-Clarke you will likely see independents standing with very centrist platforms Perhaps, but every candidate elected being a compromise candidate that relatively few people feel they would have preferentially votred for first is horrible for representation, and that's what you get with any STV-like system with single member districts in an electorate where political views aren't unimodally distributed (and if views were unimodally distributed, FPTP would get you exactly the battle for the center you propose and you wouldn't need STV to get it.) You want compromise in the legislature on policy where the voices in the legislature reflect those in the populace to the degree feasible; you don't want the compromise to happen mechanically in selecting members of the legislature.
- ruytlm 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system Quota-preferential.

Just get rid of single member districts. Replace congressional districts with proportional representation.

by ende 8y ago

Just get rid of single member districts. Replace congressional districts with proportional representation.

Since congressional districts were intended to be a form of proportional representation, what do you propose in their stead?

ianai 8y ago
Randomly assign a district to a registered voter and it changes every time they register at a new address.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  What's the point of districts then? Why not just do multiple representative at large then?
  - ianai 8y ago
    You can call up your assigned representative like the current system
beisner 8y ago
One of the better ways I’ve heard is multi-member districting, where you have a slightly larger district with multiple reps (maybe 3-5 representatives) where seats are partitioned proportionately for that district. Voters vote for a party, and seats are apportioned to each party in accordance with their share (with some rounding). This guarantees a result that is at least as proportional (I’d posit significantly more proportional) as the current representative system, and maintain the ‘theoretical’ locality of representation, meaning constituents still vote for people representing their small localities. There are different ways to assign representatives in proportional representation systems, but at such small scale you could have district-wide primaries where the top N finishers for that multi-member district are slotted into seats in the order in which they finished in the primaries. Unfortunately this system is still imperfect, as strategic voting can still occur l, but significantly less so than in our first past the post single-member system. Also it excludes extremely small parties (>10% of the national electorate) from influence. It’s a tough problem.
- manicdee 8y ago
  Get rid of FPTP first, since that is the worst of your problems. Multi-member districts will be an incremental improvement on top, and actually be meaningful once every vote ends up selecting a representative. With a STV system like Hare-Clarke you will likely see independents standing with very centrist platforms, with the major parties quickly scrabbling to get those centrist votes.
  - bbrazil 8y ago
    We've a STV system in Ireland, I'm not sure you'd classify our independents as centrist (by the Irish definition of centrist - by the US definition almost all our politicians are far left). Overall the system works quite well, and the proportion of representatives a party has in parliament roughly aligns with first preference votes.
    - manicdee 8y ago
      In Ireland you have had enough time for parties to trend towards the biggest chunk of votes, which is what I’m labelling “centrist” though perhaps this is really “populist” :( Naming things isn’t easy.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Get rid of FPTP first, since that is the worst of your problems No, unequal apportionment and the electoral college are the biggest problems, FPTP and single-member districts in state and federal legislatures are, in combination, just the biggest problem which isn't federally Constitutionally mandated and which can therefore be fixed with legislation at the appropriate level(s) without federal Constitutional Amendment. > With a STV system like Hare-Clarke you will likely see independents standing with very centrist platforms Perhaps, but every candidate elected being a compromise candidate that relatively few people feel they would have preferentially votred for first is horrible for representation, and that's what you get with any STV-like system with single member districts in an electorate where political views aren't unimodally distributed (and if views were unimodally distributed, FPTP would get you exactly the battle for the center you propose and you wouldn't need STV to get it.) You want compromise in the legislature on policy where the voices in the legislature reflect those in the populace to the degree feasible; you don't want the compromise to happen mechanically in selecting members of the legislature.
ruytlm 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system Quota-preferential.