This could go a long way ...

... 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.

 

Count me in!

Sadly, it will never happen as the partisans on both sides will fight it tooth and nail

 

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.

 

partisans killing partisanship is like cowboys killing all the cattle ..

 

So you wish to destroy our founding fathers purview. Got it.

 

What do you got?

 

How about this?

End corruption. Defend the Republic. | Represent.Us

 

That sentence is nonsense.

 

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.

​

 

How so, the Founding Fathers did not dictate a "winner take all" system, and the constitution does not require one.