21–30 of 65 posts
Doesn't the Constitution afford the states the prerogative to decide how to allocate their representatives? Would a federal law imposing this structure be constitutional?
Doesn't the Constitution afford the states the prerogative to decide how to allocate their representatives? Would a federal law imposing this structure be constitutional?
"The Fair Representation Act (HR 3057) gives voters of all backgrounds and all political stripes the power to elect House Members who reflect their views and will work constructively with others in Congress."
What incentive is there to "work constructively with others" in this system?
I don't think the problem is districts. Governance in the US works through compromise. The hyper-partisan environment is caused by bases pushing representatives apart and not allowing for understanding. To make matters worse, a tiny percentage of voters are educated on the issues in a meaningful way. They are educated in soundbites though which exacerbates the issue. A representative democracy can't function with the…
Districts, and more specifically FPTP single-member constituencies are a huge part of the issue, they're a large reason for the bipolarisation endemic to the US (for both voters and candidates) since they promote, nay, can only result a 2-party system in which voters and representatives have to align or be ignored entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't buy the argument that "the system is fundamentally broken" This animation visualizes the increasing partisan nature of Congress over the last 60 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM So the trend does not seem to be ideal here. It seems like the proposed act will directly impact this increasing split. More details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...
Partisanship didn't increase in a vacuum. The parties lined up more closely with longstanding ideological and cultural divides. There are fewer Southern conservative Democrats, but that's because they became Southern conservative Republicans. Liberal Northern Republicans became liberal Northern Democrats. It's not clear to me how this proposal would change that fact. And it could very well do the opposite. If 51/49 s…
Here is an article on this divide during the Civil Rights era which, proportionally, was supported more by "Republicans" than "Democrats" but the true story is a little more complex (and largely geographical).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that line of reasoning, this proposal is great because not only the first but also the second and third candidate are elected, making an even later portion of the voters happy
That's a fair point and it has merit. I however don't think the big two will care for it as it does two things, weakens their positions and two give fringe/radicals on both sides voices, of course regular run of the mill third parties (who would syphon votes from the big two).
Ranked choice gives smaller parties a chance while preventing them from being a spoiler, I think it's great because it would actually force the two incumbent parties to actually work for their vote instead of assuming you have no real choice (hey, you're pro-choice/pro-life so you HAVE to vote for us or the other guys will have their way, ha ha).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that line of reasoning, this proposal is great because not only the first but also the second and third candidate are elected, making an even later portion of the voters happy
That's a fair point and it has merit. I however don't think the big two will care for it as it does two things, weakens their positions and two give fringe/radicals on both sides voices, of course regular run of the mill third parties (who would syphon votes from the big two).
My horse in the race did not win. It wasn't HRC. However the feeling I get is a lot of her voters are in disbelief she lost and can't understand the opponent having won. It feels as if they felt entitled to a result that didn't pan out. If HRC had won, we would not be seeing these calls for reform gain attention. That said, gerrymandering has two effects, one negative, one positive. On the negative side, there is lit…
(Take an outcome matching the rightmost example at the top of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-... )
edit: Actually, no need to say "majority" above, the 2 rightmost examples end up with people being denied representation.
I guess this is mainly about Ranked Choice voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting "The Fair Representation Act (HR 3057) gives voters of all backgrounds and all political stripes the power to elect House Members who reflect their views and will work constructively with others in Congress." What incentive is there to "work constructively with others" in this system?