Proportional Representation

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

 

[Zincwarrior]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

Alternately, run the positions like Senate seats - at large.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Alternately, run the positions like Senate seats - at large.

Essentially, that's what proportional representation does. In Massachusetts, if the Democrats win 66% of the vote and the Republicans win 33%, the top six Democratic vote winners and the top three Republicans win the seats. It also opens up the chance for a third party win here and there.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Essentially, that's what proportional representation does. In Massachusetts, if the Democrats win 66% of the vote and the Republicans win 33%, the top six Democratic vote winners and the top three Republicans win the seats. It also opens up the chance for a third party win here and there.

I hear ya. The issue I have (I think, depending on what you mean) is that these are not head to head contests yes? I may really really really want to vote out a particular candidate. How does that work in your model? Question not a criticism.

 

[BlindBoo]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

I think the vote for the House seats should be proportional. It would give new parties the chance to gain a few seats and enter the fray.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I think the vote for the House seats should be proportional. It would give new parties the chance to gain a few seats and enter the fray.

More like an MP system then? Now I am understanding a bit more.

 

[BlindBoo]

More like an MP system then? Now I am understanding a bit more.

It could tip the balance of power away from the fringes

 

[progressive hunter]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

why are you leaving out the rest of the people in the state that dont want either party??

 

[Mac-7]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

In your plan every representative is at large

Who do they represent?

 

[ozro]

In your plan every representative is at large

Who do they represent?

I doubt who they represent would change, they will represent themselves of course.
Just as they always have

 

[Votto]

why are you leaving out the rest of the people in the state that dont want either party??

I think the goal is the status quo.

 

[Mac-7]

I doubt who they represent would change, they will represent themselves of course.
Just as they always have

I dont see any rep tied to any specific voter

This idea sounds like a cluster f@@k

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties.

The constitution requires the direct election of representatives from specific districts within a state, with each state having a number of districts equal to the number of representatives it has in the house.

Proportional representation, therefore, would require a constitutional amendment.

As liberal states will never give up their ability to gerrymander their districts in such a way to limit as much as possible the number of GOP house seats from that state, said amendment has zero chance of passing.

 

[martybegan]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

The only way that could be implemented is via Constitutional amendment.

 

[dblack]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

I don't like they idea of deciding reps based on the Presidential election. That would only reinforce the partisan, team sports, mentality - and we need to be getting away from that. It's driving us into a hole we might not be able to climb out of.

However, multi-rep districts, ideally one per state, would be a great way to deal with gerrymandering.

 

[dblack]

The constitution requires the direct election of representatives from specific districts within a state ...

Link? I'm pretty sure that isn't so. There's a federal law requiring such, but it could be repealed without amending the Constitution.

Regardless, do you these changes would be a good idea?

As liberal states will never give up their ability to gerrymander their districts in such a way to limit as much as possible the number of GOP house seats from that state, said amendment has zero chance of passing.

Do you think conservatives states are any more willing to do that than liberals? You're right, Dems will fight these reforms tooth and nail. But so will Republicans.

No meaningful reform will happen within the two-party system. We'll have to firmly reject that first, and I just don't think voters have the backbone.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't like they idea of deciding reps based on the Presidential election. That would only reinforce the partisan, team sports, mentality - and we need to be getting away from that. It's driving us into a hole we might not be able to climb out of.

However, multi-rep districts, ideally one per state, would be a great way to deal with gerrymandering.

I was thinking the way it would work is, even in midterm elections, the House seats would be rewarded proportionally to the percentage of votes each party's candidates received. So, say in the 2026 midterms, if the Democratic candidates received 66% of the vote and the Republican candidates received 33%, the top six Dem vote getters and the top three GOP vote getters win the seats.

 

[Dekster]

I've been seeing an interesting debate on X lately regarding proportional representation as a remedy to the gerrymandering being done by both parties. Take a state like Massachusetts, for example, which has nine House districts. Everybody in all parties would run and based on the popular vote total, At-Large House seats would be rewarded based on the percentage won by each party. In 2024, Kamela Harris won 61% of the vote and Trump won 36%. That would break out to Massachusetts being rewarded six Democrats in the House and three Republicans, whereas a Republican hasn't won a House election in Massachusetts since 1994.

This works the other way too. Texas was 56 - 42 Trump. That would leave the Republicans with slightly over half of the districts and Democrats with that rest, compared to the gerrymander they just passed which could leave Democrats with potentially only five seats out of 38.

Some believe that this would motivate more people to get out and vote since many people don't bother given the heavily partisan lean of where they live in their portion of the state. They feel there is no point. With gerrymandering becoming more abusive by the majority party in each state, fewer elections are becoming competitive. The results are almost predetermined by the way the districts are drawn.

Thoughts?

Horrible idea. It would be better to just trip;e the size of house

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I hear ya. The issue I have (I think, depending on what you mean) is that these are not head to head contests yes? I may really really really want to vote out a particular candidate. How does that work in your model? Question not a criticism.

Theoretically, anybody who qualifies for the ballot could run, so even though only nine can win, there could be 20 choices on the ballot. You would simply vote for someone other than that incumbent. Also, just because you have the option of choosing nine candidates doesn't mean you have to. If you think all the D's and R's suck, just vote for the three independents or whoever.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

why are you leaving out the rest of the people in the state that dont want either party??

Who said they're left out?