This could go a long way ...

[dblack]

... 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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Count me in!

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

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[Siete]

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

 

[depotoo]

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

 

[dblack]

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

What do you got?

 

[LoneLaugher]

How about this?

End corruption. Defend the Republic. | Represent.Us

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

That sentence is nonsense.

 

[usmbguest5318]

... 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.

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:

The zero-sum, winner-take-all system in which only one person is elected to represent each district no longer works in this era of hardened partisanship....Congress will remain the same size, but districts will be larger, each electing 3, 4, or 5 winners.

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.​

The Fair Representation Act (HR 3057)....The U.S. Constitution does not say how states should elect their Members of the House of Representatives, and states used a variety of methods for most of the nation's history. However, since 1970, every state has elected only one per district in a winner-take-all election

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.

No district will be “red” or “blue.”

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

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

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How about this?

End corruption. Defend the Republic. | Represent.Us

I like the OP idea better.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

... 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.

Actually it's an idiotic idea that promises results that do not logically follow from its proposed methods. You think creating three seats in Nancy Pelosi's district will result in more diverse representation? All it will do is yield three Nancy Pelosi style representatives.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ah, since Dem's started losing elections now they want to rig them shocker. Here's a response, forget it we are going to destroy you people not bargain with you.

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

Your presumer is broken. Fortunately, there's no need to presume. You can read the bill, or if the legal jargon is too much, read about it. Give it a try!​

FairVote.org should pursue the matter in state legislatures and executive branches, not in the U.S. Congress.

I agree! That's the more important campaign, actually. I don't see Congress passing HR 3057 - they have too much invested in the status quo. That's why FairVote is focusing most of its energy on local and state elections.

No district will be “red” or “blue.”

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.

Well, you have some of the details mixed up (you should read up on it, if you're interested). But you're right that it doesn't guarantee mixed party representation. It does, however, make it much more likely. Not sure how you're seeing it as a bad thing.

 

[dblack]

Ah, since Dem's started losing elections now they want to rig them shocker. Here's a response, forget it we are going to destroy you people not bargain with you.

It's not a partisan thing.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The districts would lessen but the number of representatives would remain the same...check. How does this prevent partisan politics? They are still sending D's and R's to Washington.

 

[dblack]

The districts would lessen but the number of representatives would remain the same...check. How does this prevent partisan politics? They are still sending D's and R's to Washington.

It mitigates partisan politics by giving minorities a voice. Ranked choice voting encourages candidates to seek consensus. There are several articles and videos on that web site explaining how. In short, candidates benefit from cross-party support. ie a Republican who can avoid pissing off Democrats, has a distinct advantage over more extreme competitors.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd vote for this!

GET IT? VOTE FOR THIS!! VOTE!!

A-HAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
.

 

[whitehall]

"Broken political process"? Lefties lose an election and assume the process is broken?

 

[dblack]

"Broken political process"? Lefties lose an election and assume the process is broken?

I'm not a leftie, dingleberry.