4 ms·

Or you could drop the whole issue by turning to a representative democracy with proportional voting, where it's about policy not individuals raising money.

kelnos 7y ago
If we can't even get our Supreme Court to agree that gerrymandering is bad enough to believe that it should be involved, I'm pretty sure fundamentally changing how the entire government works is a bit unlikely, to put it mildly.
meddlepal 7y ago
Yes and the barrier to do that is so much higher than OP's suggestion. It's so high that it's nearly impossible. Idealism is great and all, but you gotta have a practical plan to achieve something.
- EGreg 7y ago
  The barrier remains regardless of whether you contact your rep, or not. We may as well ask for both. Multi member districts is not a bad idea for the House of Representatives. Can be done on a local level. But there needs to be a constitutional amendment. Why not simply switch to a system where a state itself is a giant multi member district, like a parliamentary system?
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    > Why not simply switch to a system where a state itself is a giant multi member district, like a parliamentary system? Because this isn't software... you can't just "switch" to a different form of government like that.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      ...and attitudes like this are largely why.
    - brokenkebab 7y ago
      I'm not an expert in US law, so maybe I miss something, but there are countries which successfully changed their electoral systems, so apparently it's possible.
gumby 7y ago
Indeed states could do this for themselves, though for federal congress it would only make sense for states with large delegations like califormia’s (How would proportional representation Wyoming’s single rep?). However Congress has barred at-large representation and that law would require changing as well.
toddsiegel 7y ago
Proportional would be nice, but that's a more radical change. I am an incrementalist and believe restoring sanity to the existing system is the good first step, and easier to get done.
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  'Incremental' implies you are getting closer to a better solution, but you are not. FPP is simply not created for proportional representation of voters' preferences. It has it's own advantages to be fair, but it's not about that. Any district shapes will favor some party, and square-ish is not better in this regard then a salamander-like.
- runarberg 7y ago
  Sometimes a system is so bad that the only reform is a revolution. Incrementalism is simply an unrealistic option in many cases, including voting reform (and climate change)
  - commanderjroc 7y ago
    I doubt that a revolution in the USA would go so well considering the military hardware that some state police departments have. Even, a political grass roots revolution would be unsuccessful as many people are resistant to change and would not back it. Incrementalism is the best approach as it slowly changes people and doesn't get their defenses up from the get go.
    - runarberg 7y ago
      I’m definitely not talking about a revolution in a sense of violent overthrow of the government. I’m merely talking about revolutionary changes to the voting system. More specifically how the votes are counted towards each representative. I don’t have a source for this, but I think most Americans would actually be quite happy with the idea of switching out the election system for something objectively better.

kelnos 7y ago

If we can't even get our Supreme Court to agree that gerrymandering is bad enough to believe that it should be involved, I'm pretty sure fundamentally changing how the entire government works is a bit unlikely, to put it mildly.

meddlepal 7y ago

Yes and the barrier to do that is so much higher than OP's suggestion. It's so high that it's nearly impossible. Idealism is great and all, but you gotta have a practical plan to achieve something.

EGreg 7y ago
The barrier remains regardless of whether you contact your rep, or not. We may as well ask for both. Multi member districts is not a bad idea for the House of Representatives. Can be done on a local level. But there needs to be a constitutional amendment. Why not simply switch to a system where a state itself is a giant multi member district, like a parliamentary system?
- meddlepal 7y ago
  > Why not simply switch to a system where a state itself is a giant multi member district, like a parliamentary system? Because this isn't software... you can't just "switch" to a different form of government like that.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    ...and attitudes like this are largely why.
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    I'm not an expert in US law, so maybe I miss something, but there are countries which successfully changed their electoral systems, so apparently it's possible.

gumby 7y ago

Indeed states could do this for themselves, though for federal congress it would only make sense for states with large delegations like califormia’s (How would proportional representation Wyoming’s single rep?). However Congress has barred at-large representation and that law would require changing as well.

toddsiegel 7y ago

Proportional would be nice, but that's a more radical change. I am an incrementalist and believe restoring sanity to the existing system is the good first step, and easier to get done.

brokenkebab 7y ago
'Incremental' implies you are getting closer to a better solution, but you are not. FPP is simply not created for proportional representation of voters' preferences. It has it's own advantages to be fair, but it's not about that. Any district shapes will favor some party, and square-ish is not better in this regard then a salamander-like.
runarberg 7y ago
Sometimes a system is so bad that the only reform is a revolution. Incrementalism is simply an unrealistic option in many cases, including voting reform (and climate change)
- commanderjroc 7y ago
  I doubt that a revolution in the USA would go so well considering the military hardware that some state police departments have. Even, a political grass roots revolution would be unsuccessful as many people are resistant to change and would not back it. Incrementalism is the best approach as it slowly changes people and doesn't get their defenses up from the get go.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    I’m definitely not talking about a revolution in a sense of violent overthrow of the government. I’m merely talking about revolutionary changes to the voting system. More specifically how the votes are counted towards each representative. I don’t have a source for this, but I think most Americans would actually be quite happy with the idea of switching out the election system for something objectively better.