Proportional Representation

[Mac1958]

Thoughts?

I sure would like to see that. The parties don't care about a system that is some kind of reflection of the populace. They just want to skew the system to their advantage.

We're deep into "party over country" now, and the country (including families, marriages, relationships) is falling apart at the seams. That's no ******* coincidence.

 

[Care4all]

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.

I do not know our full history on it, shamefully!

But, this thread has got me researching it, to learn more!

So far, I've found this article....

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C1-1/ALDE_00001031/

And it appears that when we first began, we voted for representatives AT LARGE, and NOT by district....so maybe districts are not needed?

What is in our constitution and interpreted by the SC, is that each representative has to represent an equal amount of citizens voting for the representative....SO, One Man, One Vote could be achieved...and I believe that is how districts were then created?? But I am not certain....I'm still researching it....

 

[berg80]

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?

My thought is how is this................"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"

...........possible considering this............

This makes sense – voters want to know what an accurate reflection of the Texas electorate looks like in the midst of a contentious redistricting fight.

However, the thing that surprises many people is that current figures show Democrats outnumber Republicans in Texas. This may seem strange considering how much control Republicans have in the state.

Total Registered Voters: 17,485,702

• Democrats: 8,133,683 (46.52%)
• Republicans: 6,601,189 (37.75%)
• Unaffiliated: 2,750,830 (15.73%)

Are There More Democrats In Texas Than Republicans?

Texas is an open partisan primary state, which means it does not have to register voters by party affiliation. When voters go to the polls in the primary, they can freely choose between a Republican and a Democratic ballot.

ivn.us

 

[berg80]

Regarding the issue of proportional representation more broadly brings me back to thinking about the absurdity of the 39M people in CA being represented in the Senate by 2 elected officials while residents of WY get the same number of seats with a population of 588,000.

It makes a sham out of the concept of representative democracy.

 

[Care4all]

Regarding the issue of proportional representation more broadly brings me back to thinking about the absurdity of the 39M people in CA being represented in the Senate by 2 elected officials while residents of WY get the same number of seats with a population of 588,000.

It makes a sham out of the concept of representative democracy.

The representatives...the congressmen, represent the people, in the House.

The Senators, two for each state, represent the State governments....it used to be, our State legislatures pick the two US Senators to represent the State govts, but now it is the people within the state that picks the State's US Senators.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Pretty soon we’ll be lucky if they even speak English and do not passionately hate the white man

 

[Mac-7]

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.

We are not Denmark

Dont compare America with 50 states and 350 million people to some pipsqueak little nation that we liberated in WW2

 

[Independent thinker]

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?

Not sure of the exact details and the fine print of how that would work but I like the concept. I doubt democrats would be on board with it though.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Which would be reason why both parties wouldn't want to do it. Can't let a 3rd party get a foothold into mucking up their system.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Which makes it pretty much a fact that both parties would fight it.

 

[Independent thinker]

I dont see any rep tied to any specific voter

This idea sounds like a cluster f@@k

Yeah, the candidates are supposed to give the voters reasons to vote for them.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Yes, we seem to be discussing fantasies here.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking this too. Maybe, if it could be done, the proper way would be to just used the number of registered voters.

 

[Independent thinker]

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?


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.

Over the last several years it seems they way to get a new party is to just simply take over an existing party. Trump has already accomplished this. Progressives think they can take over the democrat party but I don't really see that happening.

 

[Independent thinker]

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

Good God, that sounds like bigger government to me.

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.

The press? You mean the media? Most of the media is on the one party payroll, democrats.

 

[Independent thinker]

How about districts can have only 4 sides and 4 angles

Interesting thought but how does that work with several very oddly shaped states?

 

[Blaster]

How about people that don't support either party?

 

[Independent thinker]

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

I'm against term limits for a number of reasons. It's a simplistic thought that isn't thought through well enough. It would cause just as many problems or more. The problem is much more complex than an easy solution.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Democrats rigged the system by gerrymandering and then passing laws against gerrymandering to protect the gerrymandering they had already done.

 

[Independent thinker]

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!

I looked at Massachusetts and there are areas there which could be a district but democrats effectively gerrymandered them so that that can never happen.