Grant Tudor and Beau Tremitiere have published a 72-page study of how the U.S. could switch to proportional representation. No change in the U.S. Constitution would be required for make the U.S. House a somewhat proportional body. Instead, congress merely need pass a law, eliminating the requirement for single-member districts and implementing a plan somewhat like HR 3863 from the last session of congress. Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
Essentially enact a bill written by a communist. No wonder Richard Winger supports it.
Duh, I’m a retard. Proportion represent is good. Duh
NOW- ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE IN A-L-L LEGISLATIVE BODIES WITH SMD —
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED PACKED/CRACKED GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = OLIGARCHY —
ALWAYS WITH MONARCH TYRANT BOSSES/*LEADERS*.
MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH SINCE 1888.
NOW MORE MATH MORON TOP 2/3/4/N PRIMARIES — CAUSING MORE NON-VOTES AND WASTED VOTES IN GEN ELECTIONS.
—–
ONE ELECTION DAY PER CYCLE.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Switching from single member to at large districts would be good. If gerrymandering and ballot access laws discourage challengers from running against incumbents, then with at-large voting, we can at least make them run against each other, and rank their support with our votes, even with plurality voting.
SEE 1932 AT LARGE USA REP ELECTIONS IN MANY STATES — DUE TO UNCON FAILURE TO RE-APPORTION USA REPS IN 1910-1930
>>> MANY COMMIE DONKEYS IN POWER FOR DECADES.
Electing the US House of Representatives with Proportional Representation would require very large districts – a district electing 3 members to the current House would involve a population of almost 2.5 million people.
It would be easier to promote the use of PR to elect state legislators. Many states already use multi-member districts. Up until the late 1960s or early 1970s Illinois elected 3 members per district to the State House of Representatives using cumulative voting. It resulted in almost every district including a minority party member along with 2 members belonging to the larger party in the district.
This system was ruled unconstitutional by a court which claimed it violated the one-person one-vote rule. Overcoming that precedent would be necessary for either the Illinois system or a PR system.
I will never support list voting because I find it a subversion of democracy. (In the U.S., the list would be set by primary almost certainly and since if you’re #1 on that list you’re guaranteed a seat while if you’re #300, sucks for you, it’s going to incentivize everyone to be the biggest most partisan asshole imaginable to get higher up on the list.
So I’ve figured out a way to do proportional without lists. You would in effect be switching the order of the primary and the general election. All candidates would need to file prior to Election 1 stating their party affoliliation. Election 1 takes place and the only thing on the ballot is the party. Say you have 20 seats with the following results:
Party A – 55%
Party B – 40%
Party C – 5%
So Party A would get 11 seats, Party B 8, and Party C 1. Each party would then be responsible for drawing their own districts equal in number of votes they received. So Party A would have to draw 11 districts with each having 1/11th of their voters from Election 1. Election 2 would take place with the candidates assigned to each district as drawn based on their residence, and the only eligible voters able to vote would be those that voted for that party in the 1st election.
Although this is all fantasyland because the Republicans and Democrats have teamed up to ensure that neither of them is ever removed from the top two.
What Gene said. That said, it’s how many countries with somewhat smaller population rock. Canada and UK? Approximately one MP per 100K population. One to 150K in Germany.
Without increasing the number of Representatives from 435 to some reasonable proportion to the population and abolishing ballot access censorship, any proportional plan merely shuffles the 435 duopoly seats.
PR HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1820S-1840S– REPEAT 1820S-1840S.
VOTERS – NOM PETS / FILING FEES – NOOO PARTY BOSSES / MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS PICKING CANDIDATES — SEE NONSTOP ISRAEL ROT.
SIMPLE PR —
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL REPS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT = RATIO
VIA PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK ORDER LISTS OF ALL OTHER CANDIDATES — SIMPLE RCV – MOVE SURPLUS AND LOSER VOTES.
[IE PARTY COALITIONS FOR LAST MARGINAL SEATS].
DISTRICTS (IF ANY) WOULD BE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OR PARTS THEREOF (VIA LARGER STREETS / RIVERS / RR TRACKS, ETC — IE SOME LONG TERM BOUNDARIES).
CANDIDATES RUNNING IN MULTIPLE DISTRICTS – TO TRY TO GET THE RATIO ???
HOW MANY RIGGED CRACKED/PACKED MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SMD DISTRICTS [FEDS/STATES/LOCALS] SINCE SCOTUS 1964 GERRYMANDER CASES ???
LATER – — CONDORCET AND EXACT VOTES- NO PARTY COALITION MATH FOR LAST MARGINAL SEATS.
The sooner we have proportional representation the better. That way minor parties can have a voice in government with different ideas.
Following up from yesterday, without fixing the Senate, proportional representation in the House is to some degree rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I suggest passing a law creating additional US Senators to be elected from a “national list,” ie, how Germany and others do it, based on national presidential voting, proportionally, while keeping the 2 per state and arguing that no state has been deprived of its equal (to every other state) representation, that that’s literalism, and therefore can be done by law not amendment.
The garbage comment on March 30, 2023 at 12:17 pm is from Robert K Stock.
Sho nuff!
Aloha, Elohim