Doesn't matter when one side is actively trying to destroy the system

They could try the system that the allies installed in postwar Germany. It is based on the problems of FPTP voting that they already knew back then, with an attempt to fix it, and is still in use today.

You still vote for your regions representative, but also, with a second vote, for a party. The Bundestag (the German parliament) is then "built" according to the representation in the second vote, the seats are filled with directly elected representatives first, and the rest is filled from a list provided by the parties. If a party has more directly elected representatives than their "share", they still get a seat, but the other parties get additional seats to get back to the proper relative representation.

The only problem is that this leads to an overly large Parliament, and, as to be expected, they fight tooth and nail against any means of reducing their numbers.

The problem is we expect only one or two people to represent thousands, if not millions, of people. And then for those representatives to somehow agree when representing their base. There needs to be more overlap in representation, or it's just going to continue being a free-for-all team game where no one really agrees with each other unless they're trying to use each other for their own gain.

Why not go all the way. Instead of voting only for specific politicians, you vote for a list of a party. On that list you can change the names and even put people from other parties on it. Each candidate of a specific list gives one vote for the party. Then the seats are distributed acording to the percentage of votes for a party. Then the seats are given to the top candidates of each individual list.

That's how it works in Switzerland and it results in a quite diverse parliament. You can even vote for tiny parties as they can band together with bigger parties and add their list votes together. So the Animal Protection party could band together wirh the social party and the votes would not be wasted, even when voting for a small party.

The Apportionment Act of 1911 set the number of representatives at 435. If that hadn't been passed the Constitution's number of one representative per 30,000 people we'd have a Congress with ten thousand people in it.

I think that would be better.

You know what would fix it?

• Ranked choice voting
• Age limits
• Reverting citizens united decision
• Force everyone to post their tax returns every time they run for election and every year in between for that matter
• Stop congress people from trading stocks
• Stop defanging the goddamn IRS and SEC
• The rest of the states follow Oregon’s lead and if some political fuck decides to just not show up beyond their max number of absences, they are banned from running in the next election. Would be interested in increasing it to Congress people who have not passed a goddamn thing or even gotten their shit to the committee stage! (Lookin at you Gym J, you SA defending, wife-threatening coward)

I am not grokking this.

So lets say I am in a hypothetical 5 person district with ranked choice voting. Lets say there are 2 Million GOP Voters and 1 Million Democrat voters

Would the GOP run 5 candidates and the Democrats would run 5? Would I order the candidates once or would I do that for each seat?

No matter how I am thinking about it, the 5 GOP candidates would get the 2 million votes and the 5 Democrats Democrats would get the 1 million and it would still be a completely red district even though we want it to be 66% to 33%

This is the best summary I could come up with:

"It has effectively extinguished competitive elections for most Americans, and produced a deeply divided political system that is incapable of responding to changing demands and emerging challenges with necessary legitimacy."

And that increased competition could push political parties to be more willing to compromise and negotiate, says Didi Kuo, a fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Courts hearing redistricting lawsuits at the time were considering ordering states with contested maps to use multi-member districts and hold statewide at-large elections as a temporary fix — a scenario that many lawmakers wanted to avoid.

While the high court upheld its past rulings on a key remaining section of that landmark law, the loss of other legal protections against racial discrimination in the election process has made it harder to ensure fair representation for people of color around the country.

And the system that we have now, in many ways, adds to that disillusionment," says Alora Thomas-Lundborg, strategic director of litigation and advocacy at Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.

For communities of color, proportional representation could, in theory, set up a House of Representatives that is more reflective of their shares of the U.S. population, which is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, Thomas-Lundborg adds.

The original article contains 1,406 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

That's the neat part! No it can't. Democracy is founded upon mutual interest and benefit.