7 ms·

Any idea how to preserve the ability for people to go to "their" representative under that model?

malandrew 6y ago
With the exception of lobbyists that actually have a chance to make their case directly to representatives I doubt much would change as most people's way of contacting their representative is an email, letter or phone call, which pretty much is always answered by some random staff of the representative.
- indymike 6y ago
  I've always had great luck visiting my reps, either at home or in DC. The rarely get visits from actual voters and they and their staff love getting someone who is not a lobbyist as a guest. If you do so, have an ask, and most importantly have a story about how you or someone close to you is affected by whatever you want changed. Every time I've got things to move in a positive direction, and never once was I asked to make donations.
- pc86 6y ago
  You can absolutely make appointments to speak to your representatives (Senators included). You're more likely to get someone discussing an issue they're working on, or that one of their committees is working on, but they'll see you for anything. You can ambush them in a hallway or at a fundraiser, and they'll talk to you, but you'll have just as much luck making an appointment.
crdrost 6y ago
I mean, you now have a few more people to go to. Like, I used to live in Kansas City, Missouri. I used to have exactly one representative I could go to, but his reelection is almost surely guaranteed as long as he wants to keep running. He has run the exact same campaign against the exact same opponent, Jacob Turk, since 2006, besting him by 10-20 points and taking the seat. One of the larger roads across the center of the city is named after Cleaver. With a proportional house I could instead be heard by 8 different folks. More importantly, in a proportional house my vote can really matter to Cleaver. Maybe he is just a beloved politician and will be the top of the party list no matter what his party is: so maybe his re-election is always guaranteed no matter whether he runs a one-off race against Jacob Turk or not. But he still cares because my vote can be the difference between an extra ally in the House or not. So if I come to him and say “hey I normally vote for your party but we have had a ridiculous heat wave and the scientists are telling us this is our new normal under anthropogenic climate change” he is much more likely to think “oh yeah, I need to care about that because Missouri is being wracked by heat and droughts.”
- jonwachob91 6y ago
  >>> I used to have exactly one representative I could go to No, you have always had 3. Your districts congressman, and your 2 state senators.
  - pc86 6y ago
    State Senators serve in the state legislature, US Senators serve in DC.
  - crdrost 6y ago
    They are not representatives in the sense of being people who serve on the house of representatives, the legislative body whose modification is being considered.
spankalee 6y ago
You're much more likely to get "your" representative in this model. In geography-based districting, you only have a chance to vote for someone who represents your interests if they run in your district. Gerrymandering is often perpetuated under claims that we need to draw districts to group like voters so they can have representation. Example: Black majority districts were drawn to allow for Black representatives, but also are used to concentrate Black votes and remove them from other districts. With no districts Black voters instead could still support black candidates across a state and get representation that way. Even better, with multi-seat districts they can vote for multiple candidates for different reasons, including policy; effectiveness; honesty; faith or lack-of; gender, race, sexual-orientation representation; etc... Proportional representation allows voters to support representatives regardless of proximity, so even smaller minority groups - including minority viewpoints and parties - can effectively pool votes to get representation. If ~10% of the population is socialist, they'll almost never get a socialist representative with districts, but you could expect ~10% representation with proportional representation.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  I just don't know that an entire US state is the correct resolution to have multi-seat districts at. I feel like I would prefer in larger states to have a multi-seat district of one or more counties, but not really an entire state. It's not like states are some auspiciously chosen grouping of counties with clear benefits.
  - pc86 6y ago
    No, but they are the smallest form of government who doesn't rely on some other form of government for its existence. States exist because the Constitution (and one or two other things) say they exist. The US government cannot pass a law abolishing Missouri, even if everyone really wants to. Missouri, however, can change its county structure, abolish cities, etc. Because the very existence of those forms of government depend on the existence of Missouri. By design, the US is a federation of more-or-less sovereign States. "Laboratories of Democracy" and all that. It doesn't really make sense to have proportional representation at any level smaller (or larger) than the individual state.

With the exception of lobbyists that actually have a chance to make their case directly to representatives I doubt much would change as most people's way of contacting their representative is an email, letter or phone call, which pretty much is always answered by some random staff of the representative.

indymike 6y ago
I've always had great luck visiting my reps, either at home or in DC. The rarely get visits from actual voters and they and their staff love getting someone who is not a lobbyist as a guest. If you do so, have an ask, and most importantly have a story about how you or someone close to you is affected by whatever you want changed. Every time I've got things to move in a positive direction, and never once was I asked to make donations.
pc86 6y ago
You can absolutely make appointments to speak to your representatives (Senators included). You're more likely to get someone discussing an issue they're working on, or that one of their committees is working on, but they'll see you for anything. You can ambush them in a hallway or at a fundraiser, and they'll talk to you, but you'll have just as much luck making an appointment.

crdrost 6y ago

I mean, you now have a few more people to go to. Like, I used to live in Kansas City, Missouri. I used to have exactly one representative I could go to, but his reelection is almost surely guaranteed as long as he wants to keep running. He has run the exact same campaign against the exact same opponent, Jacob Turk, since 2006, besting him by 10-20 points and taking the seat. One of the larger roads across the center of the city is named after Cleaver. With a proportional house I could instead be heard by 8 different folks. More importantly, in a proportional house my vote can really matter to Cleaver. Maybe he is just a beloved politician and will be the top of the party list no matter what his party is: so maybe his re-election is always guaranteed no matter whether he runs a one-off race against Jacob Turk or not. But he still cares because my vote can be the difference between an extra ally in the House or not. So if I come to him and say “hey I normally vote for your party but we have had a ridiculous heat wave and the scientists are telling us this is our new normal under anthropogenic climate change” he is much more likely to think “oh yeah, I need to care about that because Missouri is being wracked by heat and droughts.”

jonwachob91 6y ago
>>> I used to have exactly one representative I could go to No, you have always had 3. Your districts congressman, and your 2 state senators.
- pc86 6y ago
  State Senators serve in the state legislature, US Senators serve in DC.
- crdrost 6y ago
  They are not representatives in the sense of being people who serve on the house of representatives, the legislative body whose modification is being considered.

spankalee 6y ago

You're much more likely to get "your" representative in this model. In geography-based districting, you only have a chance to vote for someone who represents your interests if they run in your district. Gerrymandering is often perpetuated under claims that we need to draw districts to group like voters so they can have representation. Example: Black majority districts were drawn to allow for Black representatives, but also are used to concentrate Black votes and remove them from other districts. With no districts Black voters instead could still support black candidates across a state and get representation that way. Even better, with multi-seat districts they can vote for multiple candidates for different reasons, including policy; effectiveness; honesty; faith or lack-of; gender, race, sexual-orientation representation; etc... Proportional representation allows voters to support representatives regardless of proximity, so even smaller minority groups - including minority viewpoints and parties - can effectively pool votes to get representation. If ~10% of the population is socialist, they'll almost never get a socialist representative with districts, but you could expect ~10% representation with proportional representation.

bobthepanda 6y ago
I just don't know that an entire US state is the correct resolution to have multi-seat districts at. I feel like I would prefer in larger states to have a multi-seat district of one or more counties, but not really an entire state. It's not like states are some auspiciously chosen grouping of counties with clear benefits.
- pc86 6y ago
  No, but they are the smallest form of government who doesn't rely on some other form of government for its existence. States exist because the Constitution (and one or two other things) say they exist. The US government cannot pass a law abolishing Missouri, even if everyone really wants to. Missouri, however, can change its county structure, abolish cities, etc. Because the very existence of those forms of government depend on the existence of Missouri. By design, the US is a federation of more-or-less sovereign States. "Laboratories of Democracy" and all that. It doesn't really make sense to have proportional representation at any level smaller (or larger) than the individual state.