4 ms·

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 se

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.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > No, unequal apportionment and the electoral college are the biggest problems What do you mean? I think the biggest problem is giving electoral votes based on total state population instead of based on citizenship. California and Texas both end up with more than they should have. Edit: I'd like electoral votes to be distributed proportionally instead of winner takes all - it sucks that if you are not in a swing state you have less influence.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > What do you mean? Mostly the Senate and it's resulting effect on the Electoral College, though granularity effects from the very small number of house seats are also an issue. > I think the biggest problem is giving electoral votes based on total state population instead of based on citizenship. The existence of a legal class of permanent resident non-citizens is itself a fundamental problem for the entire idea of popular government. But even if you accept what you pose as a distortion at all, it's less significant than the disproportionality in federal legislative and executive voting power produced by the Senate and the corresponding Electoral College seats.
- cpeterso 8y ago
  I like the idea of Approval Voting, where voters give every candidate a thumbs up or thumbs down. A vote for a third party candidate is not "wasted" and the system would be much easier to explain to voters than STV or IRV.

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.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > No, unequal apportionment and the electoral college are the biggest problems What do you mean? I think the biggest problem is giving electoral votes based on total state population instead of based on citizenship. California and Texas both end up with more than they should have. Edit: I'd like electoral votes to be distributed proportionally instead of winner takes all - it sucks that if you are not in a swing state you have less influence.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > What do you mean? Mostly the Senate and it's resulting effect on the Electoral College, though granularity effects from the very small number of house seats are also an issue. > I think the biggest problem is giving electoral votes based on total state population instead of based on citizenship. The existence of a legal class of permanent resident non-citizens is itself a fundamental problem for the entire idea of popular government. But even if you accept what you pose as a distortion at all, it's less significant than the disproportionality in federal legislative and executive voting power produced by the Senate and the corresponding Electoral College seats.
cpeterso 8y ago
I like the idea of Approval Voting, where voters give every candidate a thumbs up or thumbs down. A vote for a third party candidate is not "wasted" and the system would be much easier to explain to voters than STV or IRV.