Matthew Yglesias cuts through the rind and gets to the melon with this post stating that the best answer to the gerrymandering problem is proportional representation.
Matthew Yglesias cuts through the rind and gets to the melon with this post stating that the best answer to the gerrymandering problem is proportional representation.
Thanks for nothing. A bad “solution” that makes things worse. Constituents need constituent services, not pass the buck finger pointing.
Horrible idea. Redpath supports Fed Nick Sarwark. Remember that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Yglesias
PR = REAL COMPETITION FOR *MEDIAN* VOTER
TOTAL VOTES/TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH MEMBER
HG –
HOW ABOUT ELECTING NONPARTISAN OMBUDSPERSONS TO HELP GET THOSE SO-CALLED *CONSTITUENT SERVICES* FROM EXEC/JUDIC HACKS ???
Elect parties, not individuals. Constituent services come from legislators because they have the pull to deliver them.
Matthew Yglesias is a wokePedo joke like the wokeapedoa website.
The incentive to gerrymander is the ability to control spending. A head tax should be the only tax. Candidates should personally collect the tax from individuals. Those elected would be those who collected the most. Taxes collected from losing candidates would be refunded.
We need to bring back poll taxes.
The Uniform Congressional District Act should be repealed, and the question of whether or not to have multi-member districts should be up to the states.
Also, under the 435 seat limit, the House of Reps is too small, such that too many states have a disproportional number of seats, no matter how their districts are drawn. The adoption of the Wyoming Rule, whereby the number of seats is proportional to the least populous state (currently Wyoming), is the minimum remedy for this problem. It would increase the number of seats by 100-120 new members. If nothing else, it would inject a lot of new blood into the chamber.
Poll taxes are the only good idea I’m hearing here so far.
One representative should be apportioned for every 30,000 persons.
Districts should be drawn on the basis of eligible voters, the persons vested by the Constitution with choosing of the representatives for each State.
I submit what I contend is a better idea to end gerrymandering – self-districting. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328642#maincontent
more or less control freak statism
do NOT need a large legis body –
101 members via TV/TM. P.R. = 1 pct minorities can get a member
One representative per 30,000 is also a good idea. Combined with the exclusions to voting which existed 200 years ago, that gets the number of voters per representative down to the level of personal influence contemplated by the original design.
Combine that with the fact that most things were handled at the state and local levels, an individual White male head of household voter had the requisite level of influence over his representatives, and his vote was not diluted by tax leeches, parasites, illegal invaders, emotional women, vagabonds, low intelligence mud people, etc.
@DFR,
Who would enact that scheme? A legislature or Congress or the initiative?
If a State legislature was considering the scheme for the election of congressmen, it would be argued that the scheme’s definition of “district” is not consistent with that in federal law. It won’t help that proponents will say “let’s enact it and let a court decide.” There will be enough uncertainty that coupled with opposition that the effort is doomed to failure. Even if a State did adopt the proposed scheme, Congress would likely legislate to prevent its use.
Make America American Again – exactly!
If the Uniform Congressional District Act were repealed, states would be free to consider a variety of methods for electing US Representatives.
DFR’s scheme for self-districting is quite novel, and most likely wouldn’t be considered by any state. Nevertheless, it does challenge conventional thinking about representation. For instance, self-districting could be accomplished thru a system of proxy voting. Candidates could be required to collect proxies from qualified voters in a state. On election day, a number of leading candidates equal to the number of seats would be declared elected for the next term.
Make America American Again makes great points again and again!
@WZ,
Why do you require representatives to exercise a single vote in legislative bodies? If a representative has a proxy from 10,000 voters he could exercise 10,000 votes in the legislature. If he has a proxy from 20,000 voters he could exercise 20,000 votes in the legislature.
Rather than gathering signatures just collect votes on election day. To prevent an individual from exercising too much power they would designate precincts where they could be voted for. If a legislature nominally had 100 members, they could be on the ballot in areas with up to 1/50 of the total votes. If they received a vote from every person in those areas they would be able to exercise 2% of the vote in the assembly.
Wow. Talk about making things way too complicated.
Nevertheless, the Uniform Congressional District Act should be repealed, giving each state more latitude in the selection of Representatives.
There might be a tendency in some states to elect entire party slates at large on one ballot, like Presidential electors, but that would tend to make swing states just that much more powerful, just like in the Presidential election.
Anyway, what Make America American Again said.