6 ms·

I'm not sure districts are inherently bad. The concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed make

I'm not sure districts are inherently bad. The concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed makes sense to me. I think my preference would be districts defined by geographic features and boundaries paired with a different set of elected officials determined by the type of proportional representation without any limits on geographic boundaries.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I'm not sure districts are inherently bad. The concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed makes sense to me. Yes, it would make much more sense to define the districts by any of various obvious methods and then not worry about whether they have equal population.
- em-bee 3y ago
  but the point as i understand it is that then in most districts the minorities will never get a chance to elect representatives that favor them because they get outvoted by the majority. but it bothers me that the solution to this problem is to redraw voting districts. and for a while i could not figure out why or what to do about it, but then i wondered, why not simply have multiple representatives for each district. say a dozen or so. that way there is enough room for each minority to be proportionally represented by candidates of their choice. to make it more interesting, give each voter more than one vote, up to the number of representatives. then you add up all the votes and pick the top 12. make the districts larger or add a second layer of voting to keep the total numbers of elected representatives down. with a second layer all elected would again elect a smaller number amongst themselves again allowing minorities to be represented.
atoav 3y ago
I mean most European countries have some form of districs as well, it is just not a winner takes all approach. Nobody cares how districts are shaped when there is no advantage in having them shaped a certain way. I think the US system is undemocratic as it fails on some very fundamental levels to assure representation that honors the voter's will.
- bwestergard 3y ago
  If the shape of the districts were truly irrelevant, what would the advantage of having them be, relative to a single district with proportional representation?
lordnacho 3y ago
> he concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed makes sense to me. This is true but then there are other buckets as well. Why should location be the only organizing principle, when we know there are a bunch of concerns that aren't tied to it? Why not have virtual districts across dimensions? You get a vote for your birth year cohort, a vote for your geographical district, and a vote for your income bracket group. Parliament will be this weird 3D set of people chosen to represent various interests. Or we just do proportional representation. I find it hard to justify FPTP, it causes wild distortions.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Just think of the gerrymandering opportunities such a system would present...
  - DennisP 3y ago
    As long as there's a separate vote for each dimension, this seems like an improvement. Gerrymandering would be significantly harder on age and income, since they're one-dimensional. If age is defined by birth year, then that would have no gerrymandering at all.
- DennisP 3y ago
  You don't need proportional representation to get away from FPTP. Approval voting and score voting look especially good and they wouldn't require a change to the constitution.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > You don't need proportional representation to get away from FPTP. But you should, since proprortionality as a property has strong evidence of being practically producing better piblic satisfaction with government, as well as having a strong theoretical argument for being the best measure of the degree to which a “representative” body actually is representative. > Approval voting and score voting look especially good and they wouldn't require a change to the constitution. Approval voting and score voting look especially bad for public elections in a multicultural society, since they call for abstract ratings that where there are well-established cultural variations in assignment for the same actual sentiment, and treat them as having consistent meaning. And rough PR in the House (e.g., by STV) doesn't require a Constitutional amendment, either, only a statutory change.
tgv 3y ago
It leads straight to influencing a conveniently small group of people with other means. If you follow US politics even remotely, the term "pork (barrel)" should be enough to convince you that local representation is a bad idea. Clientelism is also easier in smaller electoral areas. Now add both. In proportional representation it is still possible to vote for a local candidate, depending on how it is organized. Voting for a party is the common thing, but allowing people to vote explicitly for a candidate lower on the list allows getting a local candidate straight into parliament. Not that that is ideal, but it is definitely not impossible.
NeoTar 3y ago
You should look into the German system. How it is supposed to work is that 50% of representatives are 'local' representing a region (of roughly 300.000 people) and the remaining 50% of representatives ensure proportionality. So, imagine the CDU (centre-right party) wins 40% of the voting share, but 60% of the seats, the SPD (centre-left) 30% of both voting share, and seats, the Greens 20% of the share but only 10% of the seats, and the FDP 10% of the share and no seats. The seats to ensure proportionality would be distributed 20%, 30%, 30%, 20% respectively. There are a lot of subtleties to the system to ensure true proportionality that I won't go into right now, and tend to lead to the parliament growing (if things work perfectly there should be 598 seats, but currently there are 736), but broadly the system works.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> I'm not sure districts are inherently bad. The concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed makes sense to me. Yes, it would make much more sense to define the districts by any of various obvious methods and then not worry about whether they have equal population.

em-bee 3y ago
but the point as i understand it is that then in most districts the minorities will never get a chance to elect representatives that favor them because they get outvoted by the majority. but it bothers me that the solution to this problem is to redraw voting districts. and for a while i could not figure out why or what to do about it, but then i wondered, why not simply have multiple representatives for each district. say a dozen or so. that way there is enough room for each minority to be proportionally represented by candidates of their choice. to make it more interesting, give each voter more than one vote, up to the number of representatives. then you add up all the votes and pick the top 12. make the districts larger or add a second layer of voting to keep the total numbers of elected representatives down. with a second layer all elected would again elect a smaller number amongst themselves again allowing minorities to be represented.

atoav 3y ago

I mean most European countries have some form of districs as well, it is just not a winner takes all approach. Nobody cares how districts are shaped when there is no advantage in having them shaped a certain way. I think the US system is undemocratic as it fails on some very fundamental levels to assure representation that honors the voter's will.

bwestergard 3y ago
If the shape of the districts were truly irrelevant, what would the advantage of having them be, relative to a single district with proportional representation?

lordnacho 3y ago

> he concept that people living in the same geographic area will have similar concerns that need to be addressed makes sense to me. This is true but then there are other buckets as well. Why should location be the only organizing principle, when we know there are a bunch of concerns that aren't tied to it? Why not have virtual districts across dimensions? You get a vote for your birth year cohort, a vote for your geographical district, and a vote for your income bracket group. Parliament will be this weird 3D set of people chosen to represent various interests. Or we just do proportional representation. I find it hard to justify FPTP, it causes wild distortions.

HPsquared 3y ago
Just think of the gerrymandering opportunities such a system would present...
- DennisP 3y ago
  As long as there's a separate vote for each dimension, this seems like an improvement. Gerrymandering would be significantly harder on age and income, since they're one-dimensional. If age is defined by birth year, then that would have no gerrymandering at all.
DennisP 3y ago
You don't need proportional representation to get away from FPTP. Approval voting and score voting look especially good and they wouldn't require a change to the constitution.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > You don't need proportional representation to get away from FPTP. But you should, since proprortionality as a property has strong evidence of being practically producing better piblic satisfaction with government, as well as having a strong theoretical argument for being the best measure of the degree to which a “representative” body actually is representative. > Approval voting and score voting look especially good and they wouldn't require a change to the constitution. Approval voting and score voting look especially bad for public elections in a multicultural society, since they call for abstract ratings that where there are well-established cultural variations in assignment for the same actual sentiment, and treat them as having consistent meaning. And rough PR in the House (e.g., by STV) doesn't require a Constitutional amendment, either, only a statutory change.

tgv 3y ago

It leads straight to influencing a conveniently small group of people with other means. If you follow US politics even remotely, the term "pork (barrel)" should be enough to convince you that local representation is a bad idea. Clientelism is also easier in smaller electoral areas. Now add both. In proportional representation it is still possible to vote for a local candidate, depending on how it is organized. Voting for a party is the common thing, but allowing people to vote explicitly for a candidate lower on the list allows getting a local candidate straight into parliament. Not that that is ideal, but it is definitely not impossible.

NeoTar 3y ago

You should look into the German system. How it is supposed to work is that 50% of representatives are 'local' representing a region (of roughly 300.000 people) and the remaining 50% of representatives ensure proportionality. So, imagine the CDU (centre-right party) wins 40% of the voting share, but 60% of the seats, the SPD (centre-left) 30% of both voting share, and seats, the Greens 20% of the share but only 10% of the seats, and the FDP 10% of the share and no seats. The seats to ensure proportionality would be distributed 20%, 30%, 30%, 20% respectively. There are a lot of subtleties to the system to ensure true proportionality that I won't go into right now, and tend to lead to the parliament growing (if things work perfectly there should be 598 seats, but currently there are 736), but broadly the system works.