The Washington Post of October 17 has this op-ed by Rob Richie and Devin McCarthy, proposing 3-member U.S. House districts combined with ranked-choice voting. The rules could provide that candidates with 25% support would have a good chance to win one seat. Probably most such districts would elect two Republicans and one Democrat, or two Democrats and one Republican. Odds that an independent or minor party could win a seat would increase.
2 major P.R. systems –
Equal votes required for each winner.
Surplus votes down, loser votes up.
Exact votes – winners have voting powers equal to the final votes they get.
Loser votes up.
—
Both via pre-election candidate rank order lists.
In 1841 the (first) Whig majority mandated election by single-member district. The Democrats regained control of the House in 1842-3, and overlooked that 21 Democrat representatives had been elected at large in 4 states. But by the 1846-7 elections all representatives were elected by district.
Over time, the districting requirement was relaxed, to deal with reapportionment. In particular, in states that gained representation, the additional members could be elected at large “until” the legislature got around to district. Some states, such as Illinois, didn’t get around to doing so for decades. If a state lost representation, it would elect its representatives at-large, until redistricting was completed. Typically, this would happen by the next election.
There was also an exception for states that had never had districting. That is, a state that had acceded to the Union with one representative, could continue to continue at-large elections if they gained representatives. This was the exception used by Hawaii and New Mexico in the 1960s.
The impetus for the 1967 change was not Southern states threatening to switch to at-large elections, which would have been illegal; but rather the threat of federal courts to impose at-large elections as a remedy to malapportioned congressional districts, following ‘Wesberry v Sanders’.
So while it it true that a few states had at-large elections in the first 50 years, a mandate to use single-member districts occurred soon after there were two parties. At-large elections were quite exceptional for the next 130 years, and non-existing for the last half century.
It is laughable to think the Congress would pass laws to change this. Recall that when STV was introduced for local elections in Scotland, most of the law was not related to STV, but rather to provide pensions for councillors who were about to become unelected.
A more do-able bill would be to permit states that don’t have partisan primaries to hold their open primary in October, with any runoff in November.
1/2 votes [plurality] x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts [political concentration camps] = 1/4 [or less] indirectly control —
i.e. Ghetto Donkey communists or
Rural Elephant fascists.
ALL Stalin/Hitler wannabees.
Much too difficult pre-school math for the math MORONS in SCOTUS, the media, the college poli-sci profs, etc. to understand.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
That may well be true but in the end STV WAS introduced for Scottish local elections and has made councils much more representative of true local electoral opinion. It wouldn’t do the US (or UK) any harm to do the same at the national level.
One minor correction: FairVote is not calling for three-seat districts specifically, but for “larger congressional districts of three to five representatives.” The op-ed uses Louisiana as an example, which would use three-seat districts, but in larger states, five-seat districts would be the norm. Check out fairvoting.us to see an interactive map including a plan for every state.
In a five-seat district, any group of voters making up 16.7% of the electorate would be guaranteed a seat.
Why was STV introduced for Scottish local elections?
It was because it was a condition of the Lib Dems to support a Labour government. It wasn’t because it was a “good idea”.
Fairvote’s proposal suggests conglomerating existing districts. Why don’t they show pictures of the current representatives, and mark a red X through who they thought would be gone, and then distribute the picture to representatives who they expected to support the idea?
Do you think Rep. Getalong Porkbarrel will vote for the Fairvote proposal.