- 20 Feb 2018 06:24
#14890408
I proposed this on another site and only the Europeans liked it.
1st a fact, the US Constitution allows the Congress to tell the states how to run their system of electing their Representatives. I looked it up.
My solution is for Congress to demand that all the states whenever possible have districts with more than one Rep.
1] The ideal number is 4 Reps. per district.
2] 7 states get just 1 Rep., so they can't be gerrymandered now. Leave them as they are now.
3] Some states get 2 to 5 Reps., so they would all be elected from 1 district.
4] Etc. See below.
Each voter would still gets just 1 vote, but they could split their 1 vote into fractions. All they need to do is vote for more than 1 Rep. and the computer counting machine would auto-split their vote *evenly* between those they voted for.
The votes of all the candidates running are totaled and the top vote getters would be elected to the set number of seats for that district.
Political parties should run the right number of candidates to maximize their winning candidates.
Minor parties would run just 1 candidate and he or she would get the *whole* vote of all the voters who voted for that party's candidate.
Getting back to the questions of how many districts would a state have --
. . continuing where I left off.
4] Some states now get 6 to 11 Reps., so they would have 2 districts. Each district would have 3, 4 or 5 Reps.
5] Some states now get 12 to 15 Reps, so they would have 3 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
6] Some states now get 16 to 20 Reps, so they would have 4 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
7] Larger states would be split into enough districts so that each district has 4, 5 or maybe 6 Reps.
8] Currently Calif. has 55 Reps., so it would have 13 districts. Ten districts would have 4 Reps and 3 would have 5 Reps.
This is just an example. Congress could probably improve my thoughts.
What are my thoughts on the effect this would have?
1] There would still be wasted votes, but their number would be much smaller. In later years before the next re-districting changes in voter preferences would change some of the wasted votes to the other party.
2] It would be much easier for minor parties to get a foothold in the House of Reps.
3] Most voters could get a Rep. in Congress who represents them fairly well simply by voting for just that 1 candidate. The weaker major party would usually get at least 1 seat from each district. [But not in the smaller states with only 1 or 2 Reps.]
4] I selected 4 as the ideal size of a district because I want to encourage the major parties to fight for a 3-1 split instead of always settling for a 2-1 or 3-2 split.
5] The biggest objection to this for Americans is their assumption that all districts must have just 1 Rep.
. . a] I propose that the main reason that the Founding Fathers set it up that way was -- that travel and communication were very slow then and so small compact districts made a lot of sense then.
. . b] This is no longer true. So, why not gain the advantages for representative democracy that multi-Rep. districts can provide?
. . c] This might hurt one party or the other at first but in the long term both parties would gain sometimes and the 2 major parties should not be able to lockout minor parties.
Other thoughts --
1] Illinois used a similar system with 3 Reps per state Rep. for decades.
2] The system could be extended to the Senate, but this would require major changes.
. . a] Have 3 Senators per state. [Maybe 4?]
. . b] Have them all be elected in the same year in the same election.
. . c] This would be the same as treating the whole state as a district with 3 Reps., i.e. Senators.
. . d] This is more of a change because now it is common for a state to have both its Senators be from 1 party. So, the current 2 parties have more to lose.
3] This can be combined with other anti-gerrymandering rules.
. . a] Use a commission to do re-districting with compact districts.
. . b] Weight the votes in Congress for/by each Rep. according to how many votes they got. Give them # of votes they got/1000 when they vote on bills or for all votes.
1st a fact, the US Constitution allows the Congress to tell the states how to run their system of electing their Representatives. I looked it up.
My solution is for Congress to demand that all the states whenever possible have districts with more than one Rep.
1] The ideal number is 4 Reps. per district.
2] 7 states get just 1 Rep., so they can't be gerrymandered now. Leave them as they are now.
3] Some states get 2 to 5 Reps., so they would all be elected from 1 district.
4] Etc. See below.
Each voter would still gets just 1 vote, but they could split their 1 vote into fractions. All they need to do is vote for more than 1 Rep. and the computer counting machine would auto-split their vote *evenly* between those they voted for.
The votes of all the candidates running are totaled and the top vote getters would be elected to the set number of seats for that district.
Political parties should run the right number of candidates to maximize their winning candidates.
Minor parties would run just 1 candidate and he or she would get the *whole* vote of all the voters who voted for that party's candidate.
Getting back to the questions of how many districts would a state have --
. . continuing where I left off.
4] Some states now get 6 to 11 Reps., so they would have 2 districts. Each district would have 3, 4 or 5 Reps.
5] Some states now get 12 to 15 Reps, so they would have 3 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
6] Some states now get 16 to 20 Reps, so they would have 4 districts. Each district would have 4 or 5 Reps.
7] Larger states would be split into enough districts so that each district has 4, 5 or maybe 6 Reps.
8] Currently Calif. has 55 Reps., so it would have 13 districts. Ten districts would have 4 Reps and 3 would have 5 Reps.
This is just an example. Congress could probably improve my thoughts.
What are my thoughts on the effect this would have?
1] There would still be wasted votes, but their number would be much smaller. In later years before the next re-districting changes in voter preferences would change some of the wasted votes to the other party.
2] It would be much easier for minor parties to get a foothold in the House of Reps.
3] Most voters could get a Rep. in Congress who represents them fairly well simply by voting for just that 1 candidate. The weaker major party would usually get at least 1 seat from each district. [But not in the smaller states with only 1 or 2 Reps.]
4] I selected 4 as the ideal size of a district because I want to encourage the major parties to fight for a 3-1 split instead of always settling for a 2-1 or 3-2 split.
5] The biggest objection to this for Americans is their assumption that all districts must have just 1 Rep.
. . a] I propose that the main reason that the Founding Fathers set it up that way was -- that travel and communication were very slow then and so small compact districts made a lot of sense then.
. . b] This is no longer true. So, why not gain the advantages for representative democracy that multi-Rep. districts can provide?
. . c] This might hurt one party or the other at first but in the long term both parties would gain sometimes and the 2 major parties should not be able to lockout minor parties.
Other thoughts --
1] Illinois used a similar system with 3 Reps per state Rep. for decades.
2] The system could be extended to the Senate, but this would require major changes.
. . a] Have 3 Senators per state. [Maybe 4?]
. . b] Have them all be elected in the same year in the same election.
. . c] This would be the same as treating the whole state as a district with 3 Reps., i.e. Senators.
. . d] This is more of a change because now it is common for a state to have both its Senators be from 1 party. So, the current 2 parties have more to lose.
3] This can be combined with other anti-gerrymandering rules.
. . a] Use a commission to do re-districting with compact districts.
. . b] Weight the votes in Congress for/by each Rep. according to how many votes they got. Give them # of votes they got/1000 when they vote on bills or for all votes.