2 ms·
They've made the assumptions that districts are required and stopped because they can't see a fairness test. The fairest thing to do would be to eliminate dist
by mjevans 7y ago
They've made the assumptions that districts are required and stopped because they can't see a fairness test.
The fairest thing to do would be to eliminate districts and allow a voter to identify which candidate(s) they support. That offers the voter the ability to self select fair representation of the interests that matter to them. Yes, this does imply an alternative voting method.
Maybe one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs
- jjk166 7y agoThe supreme court interprets the constitution, it doesn't have carte blanche to rewrite it.
- dahdum 7y agoSure, but that type of change must come from lawmakers, not justices.
- mjevans 7y agoI'd prefer that change to come from the people... but yes, I'm proposing a solution, not something that I expect justices to suddenly will in to being.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago> The fairest thing to do would be to eliminate districts and allow a voter to identify which candidate(s) they support There's a very old assumption that local elections (i.e. within a district) are the fairest way for the interests of the people to be represented. Politics ought to be as decentralized as possible - all the arguments, discussions, and decisions about "what we want" should take place locally when electing a representative. While your proposal may help governments to more accurately represent the will of the people en masse or in aggregate, I suspect it would only further contribute to a sense of division, especially in a local sense.