4 ms·

I strongly disagree. Its not just the ratio that matters, but whether your representative is geographically close to you. The American ideal is NOT just that y

I strongly disagree. Its not just the ratio that matters, but whether your representative is geographically close to you. The American ideal is NOT just that you have a Representative, but that Representative knows YOUR community. Proportional representation could result in all my States Representatives coming from LA or SF, but not the rural areas. Ideally, I'd like Representatives that I'd have realistically met before in normal day to day living in the community. We need it representative for every 25,000 people, in my opinion. and that representative coming from my local community of 25,000 or so people.

gmoot 3y ago
I don't disagree, but the actual situation in America does not match this ideal at all.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  It absolutely does not meet this ideal...ever since the capped the number of Representatives to 435 in 1918...a travesty against the Constitution, in my opinion. I don't care if it looks silly to have a stadium of reps. Look a this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#/media/File:US_population_per_representative.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap... Our House should go back to something like 1 per 75,000.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    “Looks silly” is putting it lightly. That would only increase the already ridiculous level of dysfunction that your government suffers from, and would require vast procedural changes to even get back to those levels.
    - SubiculumCode 3y ago
      You provide no evidence for your claims. More representative, more locally bound, less tied to corporate interests because you don't need to raise that much money to run a campaign for 20,000 citizens you represent. That means instead of spending half their day, every day, fundraising, they can attend to business.
jltsiren 3y ago
I see this the opposite way. In a proportional system, I can usually vote for someone from my community, and they have a reasonable chance of getting elected. In a system with single-representative districts, this is often not possible. I would have to choose between candidates with no chance of getting elected and candidates outside my community. For many people, the most important communities are not based on geography. And even if your geographical community is important to you but you live in a city that elects multiple representatives, single-representative districts may prevent you from voting for your local candidates. Also, proportional systems are often not fully proportional. You can guarantee some geographic representation by combining local administrative units into districts that elect a reasonable number of representatives each.

gmoot 3y ago

I don't disagree, but the actual situation in America does not match this ideal at all.

SubiculumCode 3y ago
It absolutely does not meet this ideal...ever since the capped the number of Representatives to 435 in 1918...a travesty against the Constitution, in my opinion. I don't care if it looks silly to have a stadium of reps. Look a this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#/media/File:US_population_per_representative.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap... Our House should go back to something like 1 per 75,000.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  “Looks silly” is putting it lightly. That would only increase the already ridiculous level of dysfunction that your government suffers from, and would require vast procedural changes to even get back to those levels.
  - SubiculumCode 3y ago
    You provide no evidence for your claims. More representative, more locally bound, less tied to corporate interests because you don't need to raise that much money to run a campaign for 20,000 citizens you represent. That means instead of spending half their day, every day, fundraising, they can attend to business.

jltsiren 3y ago

I see this the opposite way. In a proportional system, I can usually vote for someone from my community, and they have a reasonable chance of getting elected. In a system with single-representative districts, this is often not possible. I would have to choose between candidates with no chance of getting elected and candidates outside my community. For many people, the most important communities are not based on geography. And even if your geographical community is important to you but you live in a city that elects multiple representatives, single-representative districts may prevent you from voting for your local candidates. Also, proportional systems are often not fully proportional. You can guarantee some geographic representation by combining local administrative units into districts that elect a reasonable number of representatives each.