NPR:
Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.
A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House… Continue reading
The post “Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” appeared first on Election Law Blog.
I have read up on it, and people who advocate for it take as a given that it would make things better, but I just dont see it. I go by three axioms:
as long as drawing districts is a political process, districts will be drawn to the partisan advantage of the major party in charge
Once you have multi-member districts, major parties will run a candidate for as many slots as they are allowed to. And party-line voters will expect to have a way to express a party-line preference. I expect that any system which does not allow a party to run a candidate for every slot will be challenged.
Once you disassociate votes with individual candidates, major party bosses can dole out “safe” seats as patronage. But if you don’t disassociate votes with individual candidates, a party can still sweep a multi-member district with 50.1% percent of the vote for each spot
The only case where proportional voting helps is where the multi-member district becomes so large that it is the only district, and now it can’t be gerrymandered at all. But you still have other problems then.
I would sooner keep districts the way they are, but make many more of them, and introduce either RCV or a true runoff when no candidate gets 50%.
I really don’t think you have since you don’t know basic things about what proportional representation means.
Enlighten me, please, then. I’d love to find a way for it to work here.