Vox has this article by Lee Drutman, in support of electing members of the U.S. House in multi-member districts and proportional voting. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Vox has this article by Lee Drutman, in support of electing members of the U.S. House in multi-member districts and proportional voting. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Unless I missed it, he didn’t touch on the fact that courts have discouraged multi-member districts in the belief that they make it harder for minorities to get elected. Well, the result has been enormous gerrymandering just to create districts wherein minority candidates could get elected. Of course, the down-side of this is that the rest of a state’s representatives end up being predominately white and conservative. So, what was considered “good” gerrymandering, i.e. tailoring minority districts, has, in fact, resulted in much “bad” gerrymandering, i.e. the segregation of minority voters. so, I’m glad to see that liberals are beginning to think about multi-member districts, but I wonder how much they are willing to acknowledge the unintended consequences that their minority districting has caused.
Ok, But what type of Proportional Voting like Party-list based or Single Transferable based?
“courts have discouraged multi-member districts in the belief that they make it harder for minorities to get elected. ”
Yes but that’s generally in the context of non-proportional voting/first-past-the-post for x-number of seats. In a proportional scheme I wonder if they may be more lenient.
Walt,
Courts have ruled against multi-member districts elected at large, where all voters vote for every candidate. For example, if you could vote for 10 individual presidential electors, most voters would vote for 10 Republicans or 10 Democrats. The court rulings have been based on one-man, one-vote, and the 15th Amendment, where racial minority groups were unable to elect a candidate of choice, where they could if they were in a single member district.
Before the SCOTUS made this ruling, they hinted that it might apply to political minorities, but there has never been such a successful case.
Federal law requires representatives to be chosen from single-member districts. This would have to change for the proposal to happen. Congress would have to change the law. Representatives who are elected under the current law are unlikely to vote to change the statute.
They were elected under the current system, therefore the current system is the best system since it elected them.
What Federal law requires representatives to be chosen from single-member districts.
I don’t know the citation, but that law was passed by Congress in 1967. It forced Hawaii and North Dakota to stop electing US House members at large (each state had 2 members at the time).
2 USC § 2c requires single-member districts.
Richard,
Congress originally passed a requirement for single-member districts in the 1840s. Prior to that a few smaller states elected representatives at large, and there were some multi-member districts in states such as New York and Pennsylvania where it was simpler to have multiple representatives from urban areas such a New York City and Philadelphia than to draw districts.
The standard was relaxed over time to handle reapportionment following censuses. If a state gained representative, it could elect the added representatives at-large “until” redistricting was done. If it lost representatives, it could elect all of its representatives at-large “until” redistricting was done.
Following Wesberry v Sanders, there was a concern that federal courts would order at-large election of representatives, since at-large election is consistent with the US Constitution (as interpreted by the SCOTUS), and they were reluctant to get into the business of appointed federal judges drawing district boundaries, usurping state legislative authority.
2 USC § 2c, which was passed in 1967, eliminated the “transitional” options. There is an exception for the 91st Congress which was elected in 1968, for states which had always elected their representatives at large. This exception was for Hawaii and New Mexico (not North Dakota). As it turned out, New Mexico divided into two districts prior to the 1968 election. Hawaii elected its two representatives at-large in 1968, and then switched to two districts, as required, for the 1970 election.
North Dakota had elected two representatives at-large ever since it lost its 3rd representative following the 1930 Census, but had divided into two districts for the 1962 election.