3 ms·

Have a look at Mixed Member Proportional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_prop

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.
    - Ericson2314 4y ago
      I really still degree on all of that > It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party Not it is not. Politics is "team sport". Vetting individuals (look at Sinema's bleeding heart eyeroll to pure cravenness transformation) is hard. Vetting organizations is much easier. > 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. This is ridiculous. This is not the 19th century; Industry and Agriculture are big enterprises that are perfectly capable of being run on a national scale. If you want to promote them, do so based on the national interest with industrial policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy. Land-based representation promotes backwards romanticism, not well-engineered modernity. The Senate giving us stupid things like corn ethanol is not a policy success of unfair representation! > However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Do you really think tons of parliamentary systems around the world are hurting because they through out some sort of "baby" by adoption fair representation?
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      Are there districts that are low on people, industry, and agriculture that get representation based purely on their size?
      - Ericson2314 4y ago
        The Senate

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.
  - Ericson2314 4y ago
    I really still degree on all of that > It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party Not it is not. Politics is "team sport". Vetting individuals (look at Sinema's bleeding heart eyeroll to pure cravenness transformation) is hard. Vetting organizations is much easier. > 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. This is ridiculous. This is not the 19th century; Industry and Agriculture are big enterprises that are perfectly capable of being run on a national scale. If you want to promote them, do so based on the national interest with industrial policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy. Land-based representation promotes backwards romanticism, not well-engineered modernity. The Senate giving us stupid things like corn ethanol is not a policy success of unfair representation! > However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Do you really think tons of parliamentary systems around the world are hurting because they through out some sort of "baby" by adoption fair representation?
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    Are there districts that are low on people, industry, and agriculture that get representation based purely on their size?
    - Ericson2314 4y ago
      The Senate