This could go a long way ...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dblack, Mar 25, 2018.

  1. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    29,975
    Thanks Received:
    2,699
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,306
    ... toward mending our broken political process.

    Fair Representation Act - Fairvote

    With one, relatively minor, change we could eliminate 'lesser-of-two-evils', gerrymandering and partisan gridlock.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  2. Golfing Gator
    Offline

    Golfing Gator Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    30,561
    Thanks Received:
    3,656
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Midwest of America
    Ratings:
    +20,465
    Count me in!

    Sadly, it will never happen as the partisans on both sides will fight it tooth and nail
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    29,975
    Thanks Received:
    2,699
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,306
    That's what's cool though. I also doubt this bill will see the light of day. But the movement isn't waiting on Congress. The way we vote isn't merely a federal issue, and grassroots movements are changing things at the local level. It's already happening. And as it gains traction, our leaders will have no choice but to get out of the way.
     
  4. Siete
    Offline

    Siete Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    29,845
    Thanks Received:
    3,144
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +18,111
    partisans killing partisanship is like cowboys killing all the cattle ..
     
  5. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    31,743
    Thanks Received:
    7,249
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Ratings:
    +21,992
    So you wish to destroy our founding fathers purview. Got it.
     
  6. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    29,975
    Thanks Received:
    2,699
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,306
    What do you got?
     
  7. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    56,304
    Thanks Received:
    7,505
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +25,099
  8. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    56,304
    Thanks Received:
    7,505
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +25,099
    That sentence is nonsense.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,923
    Thanks Received:
    1,608
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,778
    I don't know whether FairVote.org's idea is being advanced by Republicans, Democrats or Independents, but it doesn't matter; there's no way I'd cotton to the methodology proposed in HR 3057. I don't have a problem with the end of increasing representation, its distribution and its equity, but I can see immediately that HR 3057 isn't the way to achieve those ends. It does the exact opposite; it increases the power of the majority. Increases in representation are all about ensuring that extant minority views receive representation.

    From the article:
    So, I presume what's being advocated is that the top X-quantity of vote recipients are sent to Congress. If my presumption is correct, yes, that's one way to choose federal representatives; however, it's also a way that denies and rejects the legitimacy of majority rule. Some people may indeed prefer "rule by majority" and some may prefer "rule by majority obtained by by pluralistic collaboration." EAch model has its merits and demerits.​


    Why are they proposing a bill to effect a methodology that states should use to elect federal representatives? If it passes and is signed, it's implementation will be almost immediately stayed by a court and the matter will conceivably end up in the SCOTUS as a major states-rights matter. FairVote.org should pursue the matter in state legislatures and executive branches, not in the U.S. Congress.

    Oh, BS! Take states like Wyoming, which for House elections, already works in accordance with Fair's design. If five people ran, WY will still have one winner people winning and being sent to the House of Representatives will be from one party.

    In a state like MS, however many Republicans run in a given district will win, except and unless (1) there is a "big city" in that district, in which case all the winners will be democrats, or (2) there are fewer candidates running from a given party than there are available seats to be had. For instance:
    • State X has 5 seats in the House and is predominantly Republican in all districts.
      • If three Republicans and seven Democrats run, yes, there will be some Democratic representation from State X.
      • If five or more Republicans and any quantity of Democrats run, it's unlikely that a Democrat will win any of the seats because all Republican candidates are likely to get more votes than any Democratic candidate.
     
  10. Golfing Gator
    Offline

    Golfing Gator Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    30,561
    Thanks Received:
    3,656
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Midwest of America
    Ratings:
    +20,465
    How so, the Founding Fathers did not dictate a "winner take all" system, and the constitution does not require one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page