Proportional Representation

[BluesLegend]

If anyone thinks slimy politicians are going to stop trying to RIG things so voters really have no choice you are living in a dream world.

One of the sad realizations as I became an adult was how politicians so gerrymander a district that either a Dem or Rep is virtually guaranteed to win that district. Then the slimy politicians RIG which bought and paid for and controlled hack gets to run in that district. Sickening.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

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

No, it doesn't. That's a requirement instituted by Congress, itself. States originally had At-Large representation to Congress.

Single-Member Districts Are Not Constitutionally Required – Constitutional Commentary

constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

The only way it would ever happen is state by state through grassroots ballot initiatives. The majority party in each state is never going to give up its advantage.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

For a simple example. A state has 10 seats. Any party that get 10% of the vote gets a seat. I would suggest party caucuses or primaries could decide who in the party takes the seats.

But it's not likely to happen any time soon. The press is on the 2-Party payroll.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If anyone thinks slimy politicians are going to stop trying to RIG things so voters really have no choice you are living in a dream world.

One of the sad realizations as I became an adult was how politicians so gerrymander a district that either a Dem or Rep is virtually guaranteed to win that district. Then the slimy politicians RIG which bought and paid for and controlled hack gets to run in that district. Sickening.

Independent redistricting commissions, while not perfect, help in this. California's was dubious, but the others seem to work fairly well.

 

[progressive hunter]

Who said they're left out?

you did with your idea

 

[XponentialChaos]

The only way it would ever happen is state by state through grassroots ballot initiatives. The majority party in each state is never going to give up its advantage.

Yup. That’s why I don’t see this working.

I don’t think we’re in a place where we will willingly put our side at a disadvantage even if it means doing what’s best for the overall country.

It’s a bit concerning that we’re seeing systemic issues this far into the existence of this nation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How about districts can have only 4 sides and 4 angles

 

[dblack]

Yup. That’s why I don’t see this working.

It's actually started already, with some success. But resistance has ramped up in the last few years as we gain more traction. The majors are smearing voting reform aggressively - especially reform that threaten's their dominance.

I don’t think we’re in a place where we will willingly put our side at a disadvantage even if it means doing what’s best for the overall country.

Yeah. The "sides" bullshit is killing us.

It’s a bit concerning that we’re seeing systemic issues this far into the existence of this nation.

It's taken a while for them to manifest. Mass media has accelerated things considerably.

 

[FoghornLeghorn]

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 it's a great idea but the left is undoubtedly opposed to it.

 

[FoghornLeghorn]

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 like it.

 

[FoghornLeghorn]

This idea sounds like a cluster f@@k

It has to be better than the garbage system that we have now. While we're at it, let's add term limits.

 

[toobfreak]

Thoughts?

Yes, I'm more than shocked and dismayed that, yet again, we find with all these laws on the books about protecting election integrity, that it isn't simply an automatic given that if a state votes 40% republican, that they are not required to come within a few percent of house seats reflecting that.

Instead, we have states like California whose constituency is something like 35-40% republican yet only have something like 3% of their congressional seats holding republicans! Then squealing about the unfair tactics of other states requiring them go go even more skewed.

 

[Care4all]

Gerrymandering for solely partisan purpose is not in the Constitution. A BAD Supreme Court decision gave us that...

We just need to get rid of the partisan gerrymandering, and go back to box shaped districting instead of snake shaped zig zags with A/I precision.

 

[Care4all]

Being a minority republican party voter in New England, with mostly an all white population, disburses the minority republicans throughout all communities, throughout all of the state....they are not clumped in to a cultural area where they could have some representation in a district. This leaves them wanting. They can near never win a district, no matter where they are living in the state, they are going to be in the minority.

That does suck wind!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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've been pushing Proportional Representation for at least 11 years on this forum.

It's the only way to stop the current mess. I'd say it'd be better to do PR for THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Add up all the votes in the whole country and hand out seats.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Being a minority republican party voter in New England, with mostly an all white population, disburses the minority republicans throughout all communities, throughout all of the state....they are not clumped in to a cultural area where they could have some representation in a district. This leaves them wanting. They can near never win a district, no matter where they are living in the state, they are going to be in the minority.

That does suck wind!

Yep, they talk about "democracy", but when you go vote and never get heard, what's the point?

Democracy is when you can get heard.

In Germany everyone votes and if the party you voted for gets above 5% in the country (or 5% in your State if you're a party that only runs in one State (or Land as they're called)) then you get seats.

In Denmark it's 2%.

Germany has about 6 viable parties, Denmark 10.

And when people disagree with a party, they can hurt them without gifting the opposition votes.

 

[citygator]

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.

In 2021, all Republican lawmakers voted against H.R. 1, which would have required all states to establish independent redistricting commissions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gerrymandering for solely partisan purpose is not in the Constitution. A BAD Supreme Court decision gave us that...

We just need to get rid of the partisan gerrymandering, and go back to box shaped districting instead of snake shaped zig zags with A/I precision.

Why do there need to be districts in the first place? It's not like most Congressmen actually represent the people of their district, is it? Most will look after themselves and those who give them enough money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, if it were like the Senate then each seat would be voted on, and a Democratic state would win all the seats, and a Republican state would win all the seats.

That sucks.

PR is better.