The Huffington Post has this column by Rob Richie, advocating bigger U.S. House of Representatives districts that would each elect three (or possibly more) members. Also, the column advocates the rules used for the Illinois House of Representatives 1870-1980, in which parties are free to decide whether to run one, two, or three nominees in districts like this. Then, voters would be permitted to use cumulative voting. A voter could give all three of his or her votes to a single candidate, or give one vote to each of three candidates, or give one-and-one-half votes to each of two candidates.
This may sound complicated, but it would not require a constitutional amendment. Nor would it require changes to vote-counting machines. But t would require Congress to repeal the 1967 law that requires all states to use single-member districts for U.S. House. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Don’t see what that would change. Guarantee we’d still have a two party system. The entire problem begins with the electoral college.
What about the small States with only a mere 1 or 2 gerrymander MONSTERS ???
Uniform Definition of Elector in ALL of the USA.
EXACT P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Abolish the Senate, Electoral College and the Prez Veto.
See the ROT in the Roman Republic in 120 B.C. to 27 B.C. — ending with the TYRANNY of Augustus Caesar – Roman Empire for about 500 years — then the DARK AGE of about 1,000 years.
A fine piece by Alex Carmichael.
What Is Proportional Representation?
“There are many different forms of proportional representation. The degree of proportionality varies; it is determined by factors such as the precise formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or in the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election. The majority of debate about voting systems is about whether to move to more proportionality because the Democrats and Republicans in US elections can, and most often do, win formal control of legislatures with support from as little as 20-25% of eligible voters, at the cost of smaller parties.”
The American Freedom Party
http://american3rdposition.com/?p=5400
The law existing prior to 1967, 2 USC § 2a(c), was not repealed, and the SCOTUS has ruled that it is still valid.
It is quite unlikely that Congress will repeal either provision, and most likely no state legislature would take advantage of the change. For example, Pat Quinn would probably veto any such bill in Illinois. There are very few states where the party that controls the state government would benefit from such a change. And what US representative is going to vote for a bill that might cost him his job – particularly if he can rationalize his presence by “voting his district”
More practical would be to modify the election date, so that states without partisan nominations could hold a general election in October, with a runoff in November.
Richie mentions a Salon contribution from Alex Pareene that I found very useful, an important contribution to the debate about how and why this crisis happened the way it did. It can be found at:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/blame_the_constitution/