On June 11, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Virginia) introduced HR 3863. It requires all states with more than one member of the U.S. House to establish multi-member districts. It also requires ranked choice voting for congressional elections, and requires states to have nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw any U.S. House boundaries. Thanks to Rob Richie for this news. The website for Congress still doesn’t have the bill’s text.
A simpler solution would be to require Congressional districts to have a minimum size. This would mean in practice that rural areas could continue to be single member districts, and metropolitan areas would most likely be multi member districts. IMO, a good minimum size would be 1,000 square miles, about the size of the smallest state, Rhode Island.
This seems best because rural districts are most likely to be homogeneous, both ethnically and politically, whereas metro areas are more likely to be diverse.
NOW-
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Much much much worse extremist primary math – esp extremist plurality/minority nominees.
—-
NOOOO mo primaries.
EQUAL NOM PETS.
PR – TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH MEMBER
— SINCE EACH MEMBER HAS ONE VOTE IN THE CONGRESS.
PRE-election candidate rank order lists of ALL other candidates in all districts.
surplus votes down.
lowest loser votes up.
ALL votes count.
BOTH majority rule – DEMOCRACY – and REAL minority representation.
Don Beyer should stick to selling Volvos.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3863?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3863%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=1
check daily until bill text shows up
DemoRep said:
“PRE-election candidate rank order lists of ALL other candidates in all districts”
Do I understand you correctly? Are you suggesting that candidates for ALL 435 seats be listed on the same ballot everywhere?
If so, is that really practical?
WZ — NOT correct.
Each candidate to rank all other legis candidates in all districts BEFORE election day [to be made public]
— for moving any surplus / loser votes.
Each voter to vote for ONE candidate.
Mainly to elect marginal members – esp of minor parties — combine loser votes to get the RATIO — TV/TM.
—
LAST HOPE — 18 States with voter pets for State const amdts.
Once again Demo Rep shares another retarded idea. He needs to be involuntarily committed.
DemoRep posted:
“Each candidate to rank all other legis candidates in all districts BEFORE election day [to be made public]
— for moving any surplus / loser votes.
“Each voter to vote for ONE candidate.”
Does this voting method have a name? Is it in use anywhere?
Good luck!
WZ
DemoRep Method — pending Condorcet [which is RCV done right].
Example 100 Votes, Elect 5
Ratio = 100/5 = 20
—
Surplus Moved
C1 25-20 = 5 Surplus
C2 19+1 = 20
C3 14+4 = 18
—
Final
C1 20 = 20 Elected
C2 20 = 20 Elected
C3 18+2 = 20 Elected
C4 17+3 = 20 Elected
C5 15+5 = 20 Elected
Sum 90+10 = 100
Losers 10 [2+3+5] are moved to elected persons.
—–
—–
5 per District EXACT [Demorep II] —
NO surplus votes moved.
Each winner to have a voting power in legis body equal to final votes received —
variant of corp stockholder meetings.
Example —–
C1 25
C2 19
C3 24
C4 17
C5 15
—
100
Jeez Demo Rep, you are even more retarded than James Ogle.
Go retards — much better than troll MORONS from Hell.
Tommy Jones is so bad at comebacks. Were you disbarred? I don’t see an active license.
Some people retire, others are retarded. Guess which is which?
@WZ,
If you wanted true proportional representation, congressional elections would be held on a statewide basis so as to ensure geographical proportionality and that each vote is equally weighted. If STV were used, this might result in a ballot with 100s of names, and beyond the ability of an ordinary decent citizen to rank.
But imagine if a state were divided into districts of about 3/N to 5/N of the total electorate, where N is the total number of apportioned representatives. Candidates would file in one district, and voters could rank one or more candidates from their district,
But the results would be tabulated on a statewide basis using STV (New Zealand) method.
Candidates would be required to rank all candidates in a state. If a ballot was exhausted, it would revert to the rankings of a voter’s 1st choice. Since a ballot would effectively rank full preferences, it could never be exhausted.
It would not even require districts have quantized populations, and could remain constant over decades.
A better solution would be to create about 250 “National” Representatives elected by proportional representation. Move to Amend!
It’s a good attempt on Rep. Beyer’s part, and proof that he at least lives up to his party’s name, but it’s got long odds of being passed since both ruling party Establishments are currently more keen on gaming the system to their own benefit instead of democratizing it. Still, it’d be nice if this bill somehow DID pass.
I like it.
Should have included the Wyoming rule and set a minimum of 4 seats per a state as a baseline. This way no representative could represent more than 1/4 of the population of the smallest populated state; currently Wyoming.
Sounds good on first impression.
JR –
min 5 larger factions per district
5/N [rural] to 12/N [urban] — only divide larger cities
Such an idea would probably require a constitutional amendment.
I think we have to walk before we can run. Just setting up multi member districts in metro ares would be a good start.
The reality is that people from rural areas would prefer reps who are close to home. So for that reason rural ares prefer single member districts.
My proposal to compromise these positions is to require Congressional districts to have a minimum size. Then various voting methods can be tried out in metro area, multi member districts.
It’s a step in the right direction.
@ Aiden:
The Wyoming Rule, plus my proposal for minimum district size would create a great number of multi member districts in metro areas, while maintaining or even increasing the number of single member districts in rural areas.
A win-win, IMO
The problem I have with proportional representation is that it dilutes the significance of geographic considerations with local issues. If you have a situation where a state has two house districts placed on top of each other forty percent of the constituents overall might care really passionately about a certain issue. But if those people largely reside in one region of the state they could have a situation where both of their representatives are from a distant location, and there’s little opportunity for real face to face interaction. And that representative might not share their views. There needs to be something written in law to mitigate that possibility.
“Such an idea would probably require a constitutional amendment.”
Early in the 19th century. there were states that elected their entire Congressional delegation at-large, making whole states multi member districts. The problem was, because of plurality voting, the usual effect was to lock out the minority party from winning any seats in a state. So Congress mandated single member districts.
Congress simply can change the law that mandates single member districts, provided that they also mandate that a method other than plurality voting be used in multi-member districts, in order to improve the chances of minority candidates (either ethnic or political) of being elected.
No constitutional amendment would be required.
@ Scotty Kilmer for President:
I appreciate your concern. This apprehension inspired me to propose the minimum-district-size rule. As I have pointed out, such a rule would have the effect of maintaining single member districts in rural areas, where people are most likely to feel the need for a Rep from close to home.
In big metropolitan areas, the demographics, political, economic, and ethnic, are much more diverse, and single member districts in such areas increase the potential that some significant demographic is going to be under-represented. Those, multi-member districts make much more sense in metro areas, provided that an alternative voting method, such as ranked choice, approval, or cumulative voting, is used to increase the chances of more inclusive, broad based representation.
Thus, requiring a minimum district size would almost certainly mean that metro areas would have multi member districts.
“Scotty Kilmer for President”
What are you running for president of? Is it for student body president like that jabroni Will Klatt?
BASIC PR 0001 —
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes = Party Votes x [Total Members / Total Votes]
Problems with fractions.
Thus — above TV/TM = RATIO to elect.
ZERO to do with any Census.
Voters vote – NOT Census pops – children, legal / illegal foreign.
And – one more thing – minimum district size would make gerrymandering harder. Maybe not eliminate it altogether – but it would certainly be harder to make tiny, spaghetti shaped districts.
Walter Ziobro plan makes sense.
@ Demo Rep:
I get your point that electing all Reps at-large by proportional representation would eliminate the need for a census. But – seriously – electing ALL 435 Reps in Congress at-large? It boggles the mind.
If you can get just one state to do it, then maybe we will have enough data to discuss it.
It doesn’t eliminate the need for a census unless you are also getting rid of states. We would still need to know how many reps each states gets.
@ Guy Diamond
Well, if you follow Demo Reps logic,(and amend the Constitution, too), you could still have a massive at-large election for Congress without abolishing states. The distribution of Reps among state would be the consequence of the number of votes they got from each state.
Of course this idea, as well as any idea of electing the President by popular vote. would just increase exponentially the suspicions the the votes are fraudulent. If we see some candidate winning who isn’t supported by folks in our neighborhood, then either the Russians or the Democrats are fixing the result, somehow.
I’m not sure I follow Demo Rep’s logic. How can you have proportional representation without party names on the ballot, which I have also seen him advocate? I’ve also seen him say there should be no primaries or convention nominations, so maybe candidates would get on the ballot by petition or filing fee, without ballot labels. But then how would they have proportional representation determined?
What I prefer is multi-member districts elected using STV with a each representative representing at most 1/4 of the population of the least populous state (like I said previously), coupled with two additional elements. A statewide proportional vote, whereby each state would determine how many of the seats allocated to them would be district and how many would statewide proportional, but no less than 25% and no more than 50% of the seats would be statewide proportional.
On top of that in elections ending in years number 2, 4 and 6 there would be an additional 100 seats used as leveling seats to properly balance the House out proportionally at national level (these candidates would be selected by the national parties). In years ending in 8 and 0, there would be 200 national seats (to deal with people having moved around the country between the censuses). This plan would allow say Wyoming (which would have 4 seats) to have up to 3 districts, and then have one or two seats elected statewide proportionally (one if three seats elected at district level, two if two seats elected at district level). I personally would set Wyoming up with a single three seat district and one statewide proportional seat, but it would be up to each state to determine their preference, so long as they follow the no less than 25% and no more than 50% of seats statewide proportional requirement.
Basically the statewide proportional seats would be leveling seats to adjust party totals from the secured district seats. Using STV to begin with makes it predominately proportional from the beginning, and the statewide proportional vote makes it that last final bit correct.
Everything here (other than the national seats) could be accomplished with federal statute only. No constitutional amendment needed.
Oh yeah, and similar but slightly unrelated; abolish lame duck sessions. No congressional session after the election until the new congress is seated. The exception would be the president could make a request to the 2/3rds of the Senate not up for election to convene congress, and if the still seated senators confirm that request, then the NEWLY elected members are seated early.
@ Guy Diamond
Demo Rep can be hard to follow, sometimes. But, if you follow his post at 2:02 pm, he said:
“Each candidate to rank all other legis candidates in all districts BEFORE election day [to be made public]
— for moving any surplus / loser votes.
“Each voter to vote for ONE candidate.”
I understand him to mean, each CANDIDATE for Congress will rank the OTHER candidates BEFORE the election, and publish a list of his/her rankings. Then, each VOTER will vote for ONE candidate. If that candidate loses, all his/her votes get transferred to that CANDIDATE’S 2nd choices, and so on.
An intriguing idea, but the mechanics of doing that across the entire country are highly complex, if not impossible. It would be amazing to see it tried in just one state.
@ Aiden:
I don’t think your proposal can be implemented without a Constitutional amendment.
I have carefully structured my proposal for multi member districts in such a way not to require any Constitutional amendment, only enabling legislation on the part of Congress.
Walter Ziobro,
Assuming you are charaterizing Demo Rep’s plan correctly, it sounds to me like the functional equivalent of political parties would still operate, but not in any above board way. Instead of public primaries or conventions with participation, member rights with parliamentary and/or legal recourse, you’d have back room deals by big money interests and political operatives for candidate cross endorsements and local political machines to drum up votes.
@ Guy Diamond:
Demo Rep didn’t give a name to his voting method, but I think it could be called, Voting by Candidate’s Ranked Choices.
There would certainly be a tendency for a candidate to withhold his or her ranking to the last possible moment, to maximize the candidate’s impact on the outcome. And if all the candidates have the same deadline, a lot of second guessing the other candidates until the last possible moment.
The constitution allows for the states to allocate their apportioned seats how ever they want. They can use proportional, stv, single non-transferable or anything. The only thing barring multi-member districts and proportional right now is a federal law that REQUIRES all representatives come from single member districts. So even multi-member districts cannot happen right now without repealing that law. If congress repealed that, the only part of my proposal that would be unconstitutional would be the national leveling seats (which arguably are just there to make things more proportional at the national level; I could live with out it, but it would be more ideal).…. The statewide proportional seats are perfectly with in the realm of constitutionality, the only thing stopping them is the same thing stopping states from using multi-member districts.
Regardless of whether the rankings come sooner or later in the process:
Very few candidates will have time and inclination to analyze the other candidates like this. This goes double for voters. That work, and the work of lining up voters’ support for their preferred candidates, will be done by political operatives and moneyed interests cutting deals in the shadows. In other words, political parties, minus member rights, public input, or legal oversight of the process.
Demo Rep’s method could be simplified if each candidate didn’t have to make any second choices until the votes are counted, and he or she didn’t get elected. Then, each losing candidate could transfer all his or her votes at once to another candidate. We could call this, Runoff Voting by Candidates.
This, of course could be extremely troublesome to voters who don’t like their preferred candidate’s second choice.
@ Aiden:
If you leave out the national seat, then you might be able to get your proposal without a Constituional amendment.
What if a candidate has no preference if they are not elected? Does a candidate retain the right not to rank other candidates? If yes, how would their votes be redistributed?
Absent political machines, how would candidates or voters even go about analyzing and ranking thousands of candidates for hundreds of positions? Even if we break it down by state, in larger states it would still be hundreds of candidates for dozens of seats. Who has the time and inclination to do this? The decisions would be effectively outsourced to people who would do it for a living, and those with the financial resources to hire them and pay advertising/get out the vote machines, most likely those rent-seeking large government contracts or other dreaded “special interests.”
USA Reps PR by State – pending entire USA.
Circa 6 States with only 1 USA Rep. now.
REQUIRED rankings of ALL other candidates or no ballot access.
Candidates Deadline for rank order lists = coalition stuff for FEW marginal seat(s) —
GOP – LP
Dems – Greens
etc.
USA PR –
100 pct / 435 = 0.23 pct to elect ONE USA Rep.
How many factions would get seats/reps — 20-50-100 ???
Majority coalition possible on ANY *controversial* stuff ???
Probable coalition math on all numbers stuff —
tax rates, total spending, etc.
Example – Ask each Rep his/her wanted tax rate –
median rate probable to be enacted.
“REQUIRED rankings of ALL other candidates or no ballot access.”
Why? What if I think all my opponents are equally corrupt and evil, and I don’t want any of them to win? What if my voters like me, but not the rankings I’m forced to choose at random to qualify for the ballot? I don’t see anything good or workable here.
“How many factions would get seats/reps”
It depends on how well-organized the cross-endorsement machines are. They would probably be much better organized than in the pre-printed ballot 19th century era, since much more money is at stake now.
Sounds pretty nutty.
FairVote’s Rob Richie has been bringing one-party system RCV since 1992 when I first started working with Mike Ossipoff in Santa Cruz 1992 election when our team was the third largest slate.
The point is that Rob Richie should work on turning back all the damage still in place built by him.
The pure proportional representation Electoral College has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) since 1992 and we innovated the acronym in 2019.
Follow us on the new 6457-party/caucus system in all 144 US Mini-states in a write-in campaign where we grow by twelve times in three years by ranking twelve names.
http://Www.1libertarian.com/BoDs.php
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3863/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3863%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
7 co-sponsors — NO R yet
USA Reps more complex-
Each dist to have a min pct number of voters in prior [prez] election.
M pct = N X 100 / TOTAL MEMBERS [435] — min 5-12 x 100 / [435]
Apportion total winners [435] among all dists
= [435] x Dist Votes / Total Votes.
approx 3-15 [???] winners per dist >>> reduced size of pre-election candidate rank order lists.
—-
Same for state/local LARGE legis bodies.
@GD,
If a voter ranks Annie, Bob, Carlos, but no others, then the voter’s preferences will be completed based on his Annie’s preference once the voter’s personal preferences are used up, Annie’s preferences would be used.
So if Annie’s preferences were Annie, David, Bob, Ed, Carlos, Fred, …
Then the voter’s preferences would be extended as David, Ed, Fred, …
The last PR seat winner will likely get the last of the loser votes from a number of losers
— likely a minority of the total votes for such last winner
— hardly any real support.
Again — NOW – NOOO real representation for gerrymander losers.
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 nonstop minority rule since 1200s – Anglo-American gerrymanders
— mere 700 years plus —
IT SHOWS — New Age BARBARIANS in legis gerrymander control of many States / olde cities.
ZERO / near ZERO minority politics legislators — CA State, NY City, Chicago city, Detroit City, etc etc etc.
——
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
The demo rep system sounds pretty random. I have to pick, perhaps, dozens of hundreds of names out of possibly thousands, as a voter. Those candidates all have to do this same thing or they’re not allowed to run. Or maybe my votes get transferred to someone ranked by someone who was ranked by someone else who was forced to flip a coin. Sounds like a huge mess. Why not just have politician duty, like jury duty? At least the randomness there would be by design.
Having multiple voter rankings makes math complex.
See NY City primary election this week — esp for NYC Mayor.
What percent of all/partial illegal votes ???
I don’t think you’ve addressed the criticism of your proposal.
NEVER ANY SHORTAGE OF CRITICS OF A-N-Y REFORM.
WHAT SAYETH THE CRITICS ABOUT THE CURRENT ANTI-DEMOCRACY ROT ???
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 GERRYMANDER AREAS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL —
WITH MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH –
ABOUT 5-15 PCT REAL MINORITY RULE —- WITH TOP COMMIE/FASCIST MONARCHS CONTROL –
PREZS, SPEAKERS, LEADERS — ALL 666 WANNABEE LAWLESS TYRANTS.
—–
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
I’d say there are many problems with the existing system, but your proposal is still outlandish and bizarre, and I don’t see it working well for reasons states earlier….not that I see much chance of it being tried. Those two opinions are not in any way mutually exclusive. Also, why are you telling?
Sorry, typos.
*Stated.
*Yelling.
CYBERPIG XAULIE BANALI HAD AN OBSESSION ABOUT ALL CAPS BEING “YELLING.” “GUY DIAMOND” IS OBVIOUSLY THE CYBERPIG.
@GD,
That is why it is better to limit a voter to a district with an electorate equivalent to a few representatives. A voter by able to rank a couple of dozen, but might choose as few as one. If they were a supporter of a minor party that might be an optimum tactic, since they may need to coalesce statewide to get a single representative.
Paul does not petition anymore. He was not worked a petition drive in awhile. He has a relatively expensive life style. How does he support his life style without working? Does he have enough saved up to just retire? I doubt it. So it would not surprise me if he is getting paid to troll online. He’s already been “outted” as a troll. We KNOW he has done it, a lot. My guess is he does not care anymore if we know it is him. I do not think he is the only troll, but he is one of them. My guess is that he is getting paid by some Jewish organization, or some leftist Jewish connected organization.
I agree. I think he works in some kind of Jewish group with Will Klatt.
What is the magic MAXIMUM number that the mythical average voter can correctly rank ???
See coming NY City primary — for the many BELOW AVERAGE voters.
I’m guessing that many voters will be confused about the NYC voting system, which is much, much less confusing than demo rep’s convoluted system.
As for the troll, I don’t know what his remarks have to do with anything. This isn’t a left/right ideological discussion (neither of which I support, but that’s beside the point), nor does it have anything to do with religion or ethnicity. We are talking about voting methods. All caps has been widely considered rude and yelling online for decades. In another thread, this same troll keeps throwing out multiple wrong guesses about my identity, and I see he has followed me here with the same nonsense.
NYC votes this Tuesday. We’ll be lucky if we know full results in July.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-democratic-mayoral-primary-ranked-choice-voting-winner
NY mayor- mere unlucky 13 RCV candidates.
Who will correctly vote for 12 ???
—
Thus DemoRep Method –
LEGIS — CANDIDATES RANK ORDER LISTS
—-
EXEC-JUDIC — NONPARTISAN APPROVAL
BOTH PENDING CONDORCET — RCV DONE RIGHT.
Yes, I understand your method. You’ve ignored the substance of the critique, and yelling doesn’t strengthen your case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election
Now standard racist stuff among commie Donkeys — I am more colored than you.
MAX voter rank 5 of 13 for Mayor.
Standard BAN critics complaining to NY City media ???
No, but you’re still ignoring the substance of the critique of your proposal.
Jim Riley @ 6:48 pm makes a good point.
The “jury duty” model for politician duty may have some merit. It’s at least worth considering.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-two-party-system-is-wrecking-american-democracy/
Why The Two-Party System Is Effing Up U.S. Democracy
—-
Graphs on very short road to Civil WAR II.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
The simplest alternative method to implement is approval voting. It doesn’t even require specially designed ballots. Just total up all the excess votes that a voter cast. ie. count all overvotes.
Some folks think that approval voting violates that “one-man-one-vote” principle. But, in fact, approval voting requires a strategic voter to cast FEWER votes than the number of positions available in a multi position contest.
It’s easy to see that casting too many votes under approval voting dilutes the voter’s choices. Imagine if, somehow, a voter likes all the candidates, and votes for all of them. Then his vote has no impact on the outcome.
The politician duty lottery, similar to jury duty, is the simplest voting method.
Seems hard to believe it would be worse than what we have now.
A legislature chosen by lottery would violate the “no taxation without representation” principle.
I suppose that’s fine for a radical libertarian who wants to abolish all taxes.
I don’t want to abolish all taxes. Mad Max is not my idea of a good future. Why would it violate no taxation without representation? The people would be represented by public servants of their peers, drafted at random.
Taxation is theft!
Mad max anarchy is mass looting, rape and murder.
Bud —
MMA daily in many olde USA ghetto cities —
Detroit, Chicago, etc etc etc.
That’s nothing compared to what you’d get with zero taxes.
BLM = Burn, Loot, Murder
Leftists worship BLM.
George Floyd, a petty criminal who held a gun to a pregnant woman, is their lord and savior. They build statues honoring him.
This is the reality of politics these days. The left has become a religious cult.
That’s funny, coming from an an alt right fascist trumptard.
Actually, it’s a death cult.
They worship BLM criminals like Floyd and others who martyr themselves in what is essentially a “suicide by cop.”
They empty the jails of the arsonists, looters, and murderers who rampaged America last year in reverence to their BLM criminal martyrs.
Their ultimate goal is the death of America. And they’re going to burn, loot, and murder their way to that goal, no matter how many of their own or others have to die.
From Jesse Kelly:
“Here’s your reminder that Black Lives Matter is responsible for more black deaths than ‘wh-te supremacists’ by an order of magnitude.
“And they’re openly supported by the entire Democrat Party, the media, Hollywood, and corporate America.”
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1407010735486607362
GD said:
“Why would it violate no taxation without representation? The people would be represented by public servants of their peers, drafted at random.”
That’s similar to the doctrine of the British Parliament prior to 1776. They considered themselves the “vitual” representatives of all British subjects everywhere.
I don’t see what’s virtual about the lottery. There’s no region being excluded from the draft, unlike the colonies in the 18th century UK.
1776 Brit Parl —
SEVERE minority rule gerrymander in Brit House of Commons.
KG3 / Lords controlled / owned many small pop HC gerrymander dists
>>> TOTAL UN-representative regime.
Am Rev WAR = a Brit Civil War — one of many since 1066.
*modern* Brit regime in Brit 1832 Great Reform Act – many olde gerrymander dists [aka rotten boroughs] merged.
New Brit King threatened to pack House of Lords with *democrats*.
Avoided 1789 France type chaos.
>>> UK >>> world power to 1914 – WW I.
EVIL rotted monarchs/oligarchs ONLY become more *democratic* under TOTAL pressure.
Please explain the similarities between the 18th century UK parliament and the political duty lottery draft.
@ GD
Both the pre-1776 Imperial Parliament and a legislature chosen by lottery are unelected, and disconnected from the people they are supposed to represent. There is no agency connection by which people can dismiss a legislator that does not heed their will.
Recall would solve that?
Also, I’m thinking they would be more representative, not less. They would come from all backgrounds and walks of life, rather than the narrow range that typically produces career politicians. They would come from all points of view, rather than just those which poll well with the most engaged voters and organized blocs in the primaries and caucuses of the two largest parties. They would be there to do their job and go home, rather than posture and fundraise for their next election.
Random selection seems to work pretty well when it comes to the currently most representative “branch” of government, the jury. We turn to a randomized draft for the military when the need outstrips the availability of volunteers, as in times of crisis when it really counts. And on a side note, a lottery may also be a relatively more voluntary way to fund the government as opposed to many other kinds of taxes. Maybe it would work better to select our political public servants, too.
@GD:
Perhaps a compromise is possible. If you have a bicameral legislature, one branch could be directly elected, as now, and the second branch elected by lottery. Then, there is at least one branch that represents the voting taxpayers.
In a sense, a branch elected by lottery is analogous to the House of Lords. There, the lottery is determined at birth.
Sampling math indicates that the lottery would be very representative, probably more so than elections. But I’m still curious whether a recall would solve the inability to remove a legislator for cause.
In the bicameral situation you describe, I think the elected branch is more analogous to the House of Lords. The drafted branch truly represents a cross-section of the people across a wide variety of ideological, geographic, demographic and personality types. Whereas, the elected politicians tend to come from a more privileged background; and, even when they have humble beginnings, they tend to be unusually ambitious people. Ambition isn’t always a good thing.
By further way of analogy, think of the judicial system, where we have both judges and juries. Which one is more like the house of commons, and which one is more like the house of lords? I tend to think of the lottery selected jury as the commons, and judges as the lords. In situations where a draft is implemented in the military, the draftees are typically the lowest ranking soldiers and seamen, and while battlefield promotions certainly do occur, the officers who come from officer schools are the non-random elite.
Recall entire legis bodies.
Theoretically possible.
Don Beyer should read this article:
https://time.com/6147927/gerrymandering-congress-better-way-vote/