1. Neither THOMAS, nor Congress.gov, nor Rep. Beyer’s Website has the text posted. Nor does the site of his co-sponsor FairVote, though they have prepared a FAQ page and a two-page “Just the Facts” document. I hope more of us will be watching for when the text comes out; I expect I’m not the only one here who’s looking to see more details.

   For example, how would the bill make the “super-redistricting” non-partisan even though a “bipartisan legislative committee” apparently gets a veto over who’s on the “citizens’ independent redistricting commission”? (What if there are more than two parties represented in the legislature, as is becoming less rare? With more voters regularly self-identifying as neither Democrats nor Republicans than as either of those two, why not allow more independents on the commission? For that matter, why not go straight to PR for all states, not just those with more than five US Reps?)

2. You ask;

   For example, how would the bill make the “super-redistricting” non-partisan even though a “bipartisan legislative committee” apparently gets a veto over who’s on the “citizens’ independent redistricting commission”?

   Me;

   I like your way of thinking John. I am with you, watching, so far the mathematics is looking better as long as they prohibit any single-winner districts with RCV that they’ve been promoting since 1992. I am not convinced that this group has the interest in abandoning IRV in single-winner districts.

3. To clarify;

   RCV = ranked choice voting (just rankings with consecutive numerals, as in #1, #2, #3, etc.)
   IRV = instant runoff voting (single-transferrable vote)

   I like both methods, although I have discovered STV is a waste of time and not needed to save time, so why add STV? You get the same results under the “count the tics” method as you do with STV, but STV takes an incredible amount of time by hand and so is a waste. People who want a robot to do the count like STV because they want to sell the vending program.

   I am ok without STV myself, because I demand a paper ballot count, and the “count the tics” system is a breeze. So why even consider STV unless you doubt the math? But STV doesn’t give you anything but the verification of the results done an easier and quicker way in “count the tics”.

4. I like the idea, somewhat, of multiple member voting in this new system.

   But — albeit it needing even heavier political lifting, I’d go further.

   Follow Continental parliamentary governments and go straight to “national list” voting. Or, to hat-tip federalism, “state list” voting.

5. Corrupt party bosses like the party list system and the party list system is no good because it blocks our independent-minded people when party boss-types bring the list.

   Let people have a list, but isn’t that what ranked choice voting is, a list of prioritized names. So one may vote for one or more, that’s all, no “party list” system, please.

   Furthermore, the group is no good, look at the headline; “in most states, it would eliminate single-winner districts”. That tells me that they open the door to single-winner elections under RCV and so red stop lights may now flash, they bring the same rotten voting system as FairVote, always.

6. When they say it will eliminate single inner districts in most states, I think they means that only states with 1 Representative will have single winner districts. Which is kind of hard to avoid unless they want to increase the number of Representatives in the House so that all states have at least 3.

7. I want to thank James Ogle for his thoughtful analysis without once mentioning his USA Parliament organization. Two thumbs up!

8. They should consider my plan I wrote for the electoral college on my website and apply it to the house.

9. @JALP,

   With relative few districts, you could let the people draw their districts. In each county, you draw a sample of voters like you were drawing a jury panel. This panel would act on behalf of their county.

   Each county would be a proto-district. The counties would be aggregated into larger districts in rounds. For example, in Michigan, there are 83 counties, and thus 83 would be 83 proto-districts. We eliminate the 14 least populous districts, and the redistricting panels for those counties choose a nearby district to join. There are now 69 districts.

   We eliminate the 11 least populous districts, and repeat the process. If an eliminated district was comprised of multiple counties, the counties would act independently when choosing a new district.

   The process would be repeated until there are four districts left. The two largest would be assigned four representatives, and the two smallest would be assigned three representatives. There would then be a process in which the populations are balanced between the districts.

10. Not gonna happen. Top down, Federal laws in this area are both unconstitutional and unpopular.

    Many magical thinkers in libertarian and other niche political circles believe that there is a silver bullet to fix the Swamp in DC through new federal election laws. There isn’t. Such belief is simply fantasy.

    The only hope is that the states move to RCV-IRV for single winner Congressional districts. (BTW, James, RCV-IRV is generally considered to be one and the same except in the most wonky of ivory towers.) Maine tried, but failed because the court said it needs to be implemented with a state constitutional amendment. OK. Those of you who want change need to start working exactly on that solution in your own state. Any other magical thinking and keyboard cowboy advocacy is a complete waste of your life.

11. @Don Willis

    Congress has time, place, manner authority over congressional elections. It is federal statute that requires single-member districts. It is federal statute that permits, but does not require runoffs.

    You are correct that Congress is not going to change anything, because that would take congressional action, which is an oxymoron.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.