3 ms·

A better plan would be to change to a proportional system in the House, where seats are allocated to parties according to national vote totals. State lines are

A better plan would be to change to a proportional system in the House, where seats are allocated to parties according to national vote totals. State lines are arbitrarily drawn and do not actually represent the actual divisions among Americans. The fact that a representative from a densely populated urban district represents more people than a representative from a sparsely populated rural state is inherently undemocratic (this is even worse in the Senate). We do not need more representatives, we need better representation.

the_lonely_road 5y ago
This would violate one of the central promises of the union which was that the large populous areas would not be able to dictate to the smaller regions and would instead be forced to compromise with them. We seem poised to start expanding the union again in the coming decades. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to get smaller Mexican states or central American countries to agree to join the union if they believed they would have no say in running their local after doing so. I understand where you are coming from as the US is so homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union are more different than the average American than similar so these same protections will be critical to the effort.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  That is the unconvincing argument for the (extremely) undemocratic Senate. The House is supposed to reflect the will of the people which is why we apportion representatives according to the states' populations; the only compromise was that no state would receive less than one representative. Really though, appealing the logic used 250 years ago is not very convincing. We have different concerns today than we did in in the 18th century. We are not trying to convince a ragtag group of states to form a union, the union has formed and is unlikely to disintegrate. Today we have a problem of bad representation in Congress, and it has been getting worse and worse with each passing year. It is not just about state borders, it is also a problem of how districts are drawn within states, and a proportional system would address that as well (why should we ever talk about gerrymandering? it is an artificial problem that can easily be solved). Year after year a majority of Americans have watched as people the party they voted against somehow took power, kept power, and received just enough power to prevent widely supported initiatives from going anywhere. The trend has been getting worse and worse as Republicans from sparsely populated states have become more and more aggressive at pressing their structural advantage. That needs to be addressed before people start questioning the value of democracy itself.
betwixthewires 5y ago
This is a terrible idea and let me tell you why. First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals" you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people do have more in common with neighbors than simple party members from the other side of the country. A republican and a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your proposal eliminates representation of community interests and elevates party interest above all else. It also severely damages the check the house can have on the president since whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house. A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has already been passed by congress and is awaiting state ratification. It would ensure that each representative represents the same number of people but it would still preserve community interest representation and probably strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the house.

the_lonely_road 5y ago

This would violate one of the central promises of the union which was that the large populous areas would not be able to dictate to the smaller regions and would instead be forced to compromise with them. We seem poised to start expanding the union again in the coming decades. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to get smaller Mexican states or central American countries to agree to join the union if they believed they would have no say in running their local after doing so. I understand where you are coming from as the US is so homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union are more different than the average American than similar so these same protections will be critical to the effort.

betterunix2 5y ago
That is the unconvincing argument for the (extremely) undemocratic Senate. The House is supposed to reflect the will of the people which is why we apportion representatives according to the states' populations; the only compromise was that no state would receive less than one representative. Really though, appealing the logic used 250 years ago is not very convincing. We have different concerns today than we did in in the 18th century. We are not trying to convince a ragtag group of states to form a union, the union has formed and is unlikely to disintegrate. Today we have a problem of bad representation in Congress, and it has been getting worse and worse with each passing year. It is not just about state borders, it is also a problem of how districts are drawn within states, and a proportional system would address that as well (why should we ever talk about gerrymandering? it is an artificial problem that can easily be solved). Year after year a majority of Americans have watched as people the party they voted against somehow took power, kept power, and received just enough power to prevent widely supported initiatives from going anywhere. The trend has been getting worse and worse as Republicans from sparsely populated states have become more and more aggressive at pressing their structural advantage. That needs to be addressed before people start questioning the value of democracy itself.

betwixthewires 5y ago

This is a terrible idea and let me tell you why. First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals" you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people do have more in common with neighbors than simple party members from the other side of the country. A republican and a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your proposal eliminates representation of community interests and elevates party interest above all else. It also severely damages the check the house can have on the president since whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house. A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has already been passed by congress and is awaiting state ratification. It would ensure that each representative represents the same number of people but it would still preserve community interest representation and probably strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the house.