7 ms·

Probably the best way is to not have the districts in the first place. If a state has five representatives, run a single state-wide election with five winners,

by elihu 4y ago

Probably the best way is to not have the districts in the first place. If a state has five representatives, run a single state-wide election with five winners, using some variant of proportional representation. Even better: modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got. Both of those are pretty major reforms, so absent those probably the best thing is to make sure the redistricting process is not controlled by a single party, and maybe imposing some restrictions on how complex the shapes can be.

pacificmint 4y ago
> modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got. Germany does that. They have districts, which get to send the winner in each district to parliament. But these only account for a part of the total seats available. The others are filled up from a party list in such a way that the proportions are equal to the proportions of the votes. That way you get the best of both worlds, you have representatives that have a connection to each district, but you still have the distribution in parliament that represent the actual distribution of the votes.
- Aaron2222 4y ago
  We do the same here in New Zealand. It's called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...
- underyx 4y ago
  Hungary does this too, and the party list seats are filled in a way that increases the influence of smaller parties. The first seat goes to the party with the most votes, but once that seat's assigned, the winning party's vote total is cut to 1/2. Then the next seat is assigned to whoever has the most votes afterwards, and the winner's total is cut to 1/2 if it's their first time winning, or 1/3 if it's their second time winning. And so on.
  - laci37 4y ago
    The Hungarian system is pretty much useless since the reform in 2013. Before 2013 party candidates that did not win the districts contributed their votes to the list vote totals. This is losers compensation. Since then we have a winners' compensation: winners also contribute their extra district votes (the difference of their votes and the second place candidate's) to the list totals. This exacerbates gerrymandering and pretty much guarantees the 2/3s majority needed for amending the constitution to Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party with their 45%-55% popular vote.
  - irishsultan 4y ago
    What you're describing seems to be the D'Hondt method which favors larger parties, not smaller parties.
- sega_sai 4y ago
  We have a similar system for a Scottish Parliament elections (Additional Member System). But it is still FPTP for the Westminster elections.
adastra22 4y ago
Than who advocate for you? Having a local representative s an essential part of getting government by to work for you.
- Aaron2222 4y ago
  Have a look at Mixed Member Proportional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...
  - adastra22 4y ago
    I consider it a feature that Congress doesn’t map directly to party voting proportions.
    - Ericson2314 4y ago
      This is smug nonsense. In a PR system there will be more than 2 parties, and Americans that love their "they all suck" badge of honor will find something worth identifying with.
      - ant6n 4y ago
        Moving towards pluralism would be the number one way in which the US could rejuvenate their democracy.
        Ericson2314 4y ago
        Absolutely!
      - adastra22 4y ago
        That was unnecessarily dismissive, as I was being quite sincere. It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party. It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations. The current system is not without faults, such as gerrymandered districts and the various factors that contribute to us having a rigid two-party system. I suspect a lot of people on HN would rather throw it all out and have strict proportional voting and/or equal-population districts. However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
kube-system 4y ago
Then you end up with representatives that represent dense areas, and the rural folks don’t like that.
- arrow7000 4y ago
  Almost as if rural folk don't actually care about democracy
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Almost as if rural folk have VERY different needs than urban ones and having their needs be unmet due to being the minority.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    The problem is, urban areas have grown so massive that they can just screw over rural areas by sheer numbers - in Germany, 77% of voters live in urban or agglomeration areas, that's way blowing past the usual 2/3rds-majority requirements. At that point, who is to prevent parties from solely catering to urban area voters at the complete expense of rural voters? It's already seen as problematic that most public investments like infrastructure get directed towards urban areas, the term "flyover states" exists for a reason and we've been seeing for the last decade just how damaging that can be for a democracy. [1] https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fakten-zu-urbanisierung-und-landflucht https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fak...
dfxm12 4y ago
Don't forget state elections! Tons of state legislatures are affected by gerrymandering, too. It's frustrating that my city's representation is cracked and packed away.

by elihu 4y ago

pacificmint 4y ago

> modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got. Germany does that. They have districts, which get to send the winner in each district to parliament. But these only account for a part of the total seats available. The others are filled up from a party list in such a way that the proportions are equal to the proportions of the votes. That way you get the best of both worlds, you have representatives that have a connection to each district, but you still have the distribution in parliament that represent the actual distribution of the votes.

Aaron2222 4y ago
We do the same here in New Zealand. It's called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...
underyx 4y ago
Hungary does this too, and the party list seats are filled in a way that increases the influence of smaller parties. The first seat goes to the party with the most votes, but once that seat's assigned, the winning party's vote total is cut to 1/2. Then the next seat is assigned to whoever has the most votes afterwards, and the winner's total is cut to 1/2 if it's their first time winning, or 1/3 if it's their second time winning. And so on.
- laci37 4y ago
  The Hungarian system is pretty much useless since the reform in 2013. Before 2013 party candidates that did not win the districts contributed their votes to the list vote totals. This is losers compensation. Since then we have a winners' compensation: winners also contribute their extra district votes (the difference of their votes and the second place candidate's) to the list totals. This exacerbates gerrymandering and pretty much guarantees the 2/3s majority needed for amending the constitution to Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party with their 45%-55% popular vote.
- irishsultan 4y ago
  What you're describing seems to be the D'Hondt method which favors larger parties, not smaller parties.
sega_sai 4y ago
We have a similar system for a Scottish Parliament elections (Additional Member System). But it is still FPTP for the Westminster elections.

adastra22 4y ago

Than who advocate for you? Having a local representative s an essential part of getting government by to work for you.

Aaron2222 4y ago
Have a look at Mixed Member Proportional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...
- adastra22 4y ago
  I consider it a feature that Congress doesn’t map directly to party voting proportions.
  - Ericson2314 4y ago
    This is smug nonsense. In a PR system there will be more than 2 parties, and Americans that love their "they all suck" badge of honor will find something worth identifying with.
    - ant6n 4y ago
      Moving towards pluralism would be the number one way in which the US could rejuvenate their democracy.
      - Ericson2314 4y ago
        Absolutely!
    - adastra22 4y ago
      That was unnecessarily dismissive, as I was being quite sincere. It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party. It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations. The current system is not without faults, such as gerrymandered districts and the various factors that contribute to us having a rigid two-party system. I suspect a lot of people on HN would rather throw it all out and have strict proportional voting and/or equal-population districts. However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

kube-system 4y ago

Then you end up with representatives that represent dense areas, and the rural folks don’t like that.

arrow7000 4y ago
Almost as if rural folk don't actually care about democracy
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Almost as if rural folk have VERY different needs than urban ones and having their needs be unmet due to being the minority.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  The problem is, urban areas have grown so massive that they can just screw over rural areas by sheer numbers - in Germany, 77% of voters live in urban or agglomeration areas, that's way blowing past the usual 2/3rds-majority requirements. At that point, who is to prevent parties from solely catering to urban area voters at the complete expense of rural voters? It's already seen as problematic that most public investments like infrastructure get directed towards urban areas, the term "flyover states" exists for a reason and we've been seeing for the last decade just how damaging that can be for a democracy. [1] https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fakten-zu-urbanisierung-und-landflucht https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fak...

dfxm12 4y ago

Don't forget state elections! Tons of state legislatures are affected by gerrymandering, too. It's frustrating that my city's representation is cracked and packed away.