Boost_Crazy said:
In reply to Beer Baron ๐บ :
If we aren't talking about federal elections, then of course it won't take a constitutional amendment. But I thought you were talking about federal representation. If you are just talking about local and state, yes, you just need to work within those systems.
I'm talking about multiple things. Think of it like have a 1 year, 3 year, and 10 year plan (although not necessarily that timeline.) Starting small and achievable first to build momentum for larger change.
So I am thinking of first working to reform local and state systems for now. With the hope that in the future we might change how one or a few individual states choose their members for the U.S. House or Rep. With bigger changes farther down the road.
I'm sorry, can you please explain this again? I'm not understanding the reasoning or benefit as described. If my state were divided up into 99 districts, and my district voted for a representative, then I'd expect that rep would be closely tied to the wants and needs of my small district. If my district were were combined with two others, would that not dilute my representation? Sure you kept the numbers the same, but they cover a larger area and now it's 3 people to point fingers and pass the buck? How does that benefit me as a voter? It sounds backwards to me. I don't think this is an example of proportional representation, it's just consolidating the same representation, and risks making it less proportional if anything.
Valid critiques.
[Edit - Concise answer] If you live in Ohio where I am focusing, you live in a Gerrymandered district designed to keep one party in power there. You have an entrenched candidate with no viable avenue to replace them. If you are in the minority in that district, your representative simply does not and will not represent your interests. Even if you are in the majority block, your representative still doesn't have to worry about being accountable to you. If they displease you, what are you going to do? Vote for "The Other Team"? Throw your vote away on a third party? They know you will continue to vote for them as long as they are the "lesser evil".
Expanding the scope means that previously disenfranchised minority gets a voice, and those in the majority or plurality now have meaningful choices that allow them to express true preference.
[Original full answer - ]
First off, I'm not necessarily saying this is the plan I want to push for. Just an example of a hypothetical plan that would be better. That said, I still think this would be better than the current system for a lot of reasons.
It *is* a compromise. It would make representatives tied to a larger geographical area, but I think would still be small enough to be manageable. Ohio divides up the same populace into only 15 federal seats.
As for how it benefits you as a voter. Let's say all three districts vote firmly for Party A by roughly 65%. That means all three of those districts will always go to Party A. If you are in the 33% that votes for Party B, or the 2% who votes C, you will *never* get a representative who represents your interests. You will have three options that do not matter because the winner will always be the same entrenched member of Party A.
If you lump these three together and use a Ranked Choice, Single Transferable Vote system (see the video from the start of the thread) you might then get a ballot with 3 (or 4) members of Party A, 3 from Party B, and one from Party C. The result will most likely be that Party A holds 2 seats, but now those previously disenfranchised 35% will be able to select the candidate from Party B or C that they all best agree on.
Let's even say that you've been okay with this situation before now. You are a moderate-A voter or an A-leaning moderate. You hate Party B and will never vote for them. But you don't really care for your Party A candidate. They are too extremist and entrenched. But what are you going to do? You dislike Party B and won't vote for them. You are okay with Party C, but it's a throwaway vote. This system benefits you. That extreme-A you don't like... you can make a meaningful vote for someone else. You can cast a ranked vote for candidates A2, A3, and C before A1. You can vote in a fresher more moderate perspective from the party you prefer but do not love.
Even if you preferred Party A, your representative now has to be more accountable to you because there is a viable path for you to replace them.
And in the case of Ohio... our electoral districts are HORRIBLY Gerrymandered. This also solves that problem.