Proportional Representation

[Mac-7]

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

What sort of reasons can an at-large candidate give?

Under the old system in dist one have a specific person who represents them

Under this new system thats no longer the case

 

[Couchpotato]

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?

Part of the point of House seats is that the person sitting in it represents a smaller portion of the greater electorate and so the house is supposed to be the “voice of the people”. If they are at large bids that will no longer be the case.

 

[progressive hunter]

How are they left out?

If a third party candidate won a sufficient percentage of the vote they’d be awarded a seat like any other candidate

How exactly is that different from the current system in terms of locking out third party candidates?

You do realize that under the current system, not one third party candidate holds a seat in the House?

Even the two “independent” senators caucus with one of the big 2 parties, making their “independence” meaningless.

thanks for proving my point,,

they are there to represent the people not a political party,,

 

[braalian]

And if they're not in a "party"?

Nobody’s stopping them from running

 

[dblack]

Nobody’s stopping them from running

Are you playing dumb? Or are you the real deal?

What sort of "proportional representation" occurs if a candidate isn't beholden to a "party"?

 

[citygator]

Both of our Senators are GOP

Thanks. Error noted.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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?

Business as usual.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

In your plan every representative is at large

Who do they represent?

You don't fundamentally understand how government works?

 

[Billiejeens]

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

Did you not thread the thread?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Gotta go 5th party.

 

[braalian]

Are you playing dumb? Or are you the real deal?

What sort of "proportional representation" occurs if a candidate isn't beholden to a "party"?

You don’t have to belong to any political party to run for congress

I’m the system the OP speaks of, an independent candidate could win enough votes to qualify for a seat.

I’m not sure what would happen if they were to win enough to qualify for multiple seats?

Their vote would be worth multiple seats I guess?

 

[Dekster]

How is that a good idea?

There’s too many congressmen already

You want a House made up of 1300-plus members?

Yep. Would be nearly impossible to gerrymander that man seats and it would give third parties a chance at winning and holding some.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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....

Some did districts, some did at large.

1790–91 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Georgia and Connecticut did at large.

 

[Mac-7]

You don't fundamentally understand how government works?

Your wacky idea of at-large representatives is very understandable

 

[frigidweirdo]

Part of the point of House seats is that the person sitting in it represents a smaller portion of the greater electorate and so the house is supposed to be the “voice of the people”. If they are at large bids that will no longer be the case.

But it isn't like this anyway. These people know that MONEY can buy them the seat, and they look for the money. Or they only represent those in their district who vote for them.

If you look at places with PR, you have a whole party looking out for your needs. They have more power.

Right now, you have Reps and Dems, and if your needs don't come under whatever the Reps and the Dems want, stuff you.

In Germany there are about 6 viable parties. Traditional left and right. Further right (MAGA-ish) and center right. Further left and Green left.

So, you go to vote, you have a choice.

A person in Wyoming who isn't Republican might prefer politics that someone in MA might also want. But right now both get drowned out by the Rep and Dem control.

Because Reps and Dems know they only need 50% or less of the vote. And they fight NEGATIVELY. They say "the other party sucks, vote us".

In Germany each party stands for something, people know what they stand for. If you Rep stands for something, but the other Reps don't stand for this, then your Congressman will get you nothing.

In Germany, they often have coalitions (almost always) so you need to have different groups working together. In the US it seems it's either one party controls and gets whatever it wants, or nothing happens.

 

[Couchpotato]

But it isn't like this anyway. These people know that MONEY can buy them the seat, and they look for the money. Or they only represent those in their district who vote for them.

If you look at places with PR, you have a whole party looking out for your needs. They have more power.

Right now, you have Reps and Dems, and if your needs don't come under whatever the Reps and the Dems want, stuff you.

In Germany there are about 6 viable parties. Traditional left and right. Further right (MAGA-ish) and center right. Further left and Green left.

So, you go to vote, you have a choice.

A person in Wyoming who isn't Republican might prefer politics that someone in MA might also want. But right now both get drowned out by the Rep and Dem control.

Because Reps and Dems know they only need 50% or less of the vote. And they fight NEGATIVELY. They say "the other party sucks, vote us".

In Germany each party stands for something, people know what they stand for. If you Rep stands for something, but the other Reps don't stand for this, then your Congressman will get you nothing.

In Germany, they often have coalitions (almost always) so you need to have different groups working together. In the US it seems it's either one party controls and gets whatever it wants, or nothing happens.

At large bids do not solve the problem though. The people elected will be beholden to either the Dem or Rep party not to the people they allegedly represent even if that's just the people in their district that vote for them. If anything, this will exacerbate the issue because differences in the needs/issues of congressional districts regardless of the party base will be irrelevant. Even individual state issues will be irrelevant to a larger extent. All that will matter is the national party platform.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

That would result in a parliament, not a Congress. Dumb idea!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Your numbers are totally hosed. I suggest you research more.

 

[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 it because it presumes that we're voting for parties rather than candidates. Voting for one Republican doesn't mean I support all of them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't like it because it presumes that we're voting for parties rather than candidates. Voting for one Republican doesn't mean I support all of them.

I guess my main concern with having, for example, eight at-large seats and the top eight vote getters winning can still result in one party sweeping all the seats.