“Let’s keep all the existing problems slightly repackaged and create new ones.” -VP at a Think Tank
No wonder we’re in so much trouble. With friends like this who needs enemies. Better solution:
No more geographic attachment for the House. Proportional representation time. In 1776, local concerns were much more distinct. Now, Anywhere USA is everywhere. Plus, Senators are still bound to states for people who worry about that. Instead, parties win seats based on a percentage of the vote they receive and can assign members (which they do already, just with more steps) as they see fit. Gerrymandering solved, also we just broke the terrible de facto 2 party system.
Having a district cross a state border will be a problem when a Rep has to navigate two separate state governmental systems when trying to access help for their constituents.
That’s OK-ish sounding but I’m going to give the example of NY. NYC is a very different animal from the northern part of the state and local issues matter a great deal depending on which portion you live in. I imagine it’s like that in other very large states and major cities in general.
I think perhaps there should be some accounting for population centers. Major cities simply have different concerns from rural areas, and it seems reasonable to have each be represented. But we may be getting into a “where does it stop” thing here.
I’m not sure how to skin that cat or if it’s worth skinning. I generally agree with your proposal - the way it’s currently done is absurd.
We have local and state governments. Focusing on these minor differences at the federal level made less and less sense with the industrial revolution, rail, telegraph, highway system, internet. I’m not sure where exactly we crossed over from valid governance to outdated system to absurd, but we’re definitely there.
Also, these differences tend to be overblown which is why people, politicians speak about them in the vaguest of terms. Yes, when comparing a large city to hill people there might be some differences (though again, far less than historically). However, we’re at the federal level and big city to big city and hill people to hill people it’s all more or less Anywhere, USA.
parties win seats based on a percentage of the vote they receive and can assign members (which they do already, just with more steps) as they see fit. Gerrymandering solved, also we just broke the terrible de facto 2 party system
Nope. If people only get one vote (vs, say, ranked choice) then they have to be tactical about their one selection. This forces “Abilene effect” voting.
Nope. There are many proportional government systems in the world that work just fine. Ranked choice makes zero sense in this context. Assuming everyone will be tactical is cute. The considerable leap in logic to the Abilene effect is… where to begin? First, we already have coalitions they just form before the election, but the voters are NOT deciding the power balance at the DNC/RNC. Second, nothing is forced and Abilene Effect is not a state of being. Third, as Larry David said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”.
“Let’s keep all the existing problems slightly repackaged and create new ones.” -VP at a Think Tank
No wonder we’re in so much trouble. With friends like this who needs enemies. Better solution:
No more geographic attachment for the House. Proportional representation time. In 1776, local concerns were much more distinct. Now, Anywhere USA is everywhere. Plus, Senators are still bound to states for people who worry about that. Instead, parties win seats based on a percentage of the vote they receive and can assign members (which they do already, just with more steps) as they see fit. Gerrymandering solved, also we just broke the terrible de facto 2 party system.
Having a district cross a state border will be a problem when a Rep has to navigate two separate state governmental systems when trying to access help for their constituents.
That’s OK-ish sounding but I’m going to give the example of NY. NYC is a very different animal from the northern part of the state and local issues matter a great deal depending on which portion you live in. I imagine it’s like that in other very large states and major cities in general.
I think perhaps there should be some accounting for population centers. Major cities simply have different concerns from rural areas, and it seems reasonable to have each be represented. But we may be getting into a “where does it stop” thing here.
I’m not sure how to skin that cat or if it’s worth skinning. I generally agree with your proposal - the way it’s currently done is absurd.
We have local and state governments. Focusing on these minor differences at the federal level made less and less sense with the industrial revolution, rail, telegraph, highway system, internet. I’m not sure where exactly we crossed over from valid governance to outdated system to absurd, but we’re definitely there.
Also, these differences tend to be overblown which is why people, politicians speak about them in the vaguest of terms. Yes, when comparing a large city to hill people there might be some differences (though again, far less than historically). However, we’re at the federal level and big city to big city and hill people to hill people it’s all more or less Anywhere, USA.
Nope. If people only get one vote (vs, say, ranked choice) then they have to be tactical about their one selection. This forces “Abilene effect” voting.
Nope. There are many proportional government systems in the world that work just fine. Ranked choice makes zero sense in this context. Assuming everyone will be tactical is cute. The considerable leap in logic to the Abilene effect is… where to begin? First, we already have coalitions they just form before the election, but the voters are NOT deciding the power balance at the DNC/RNC. Second, nothing is forced and Abilene Effect is not a state of being. Third, as Larry David said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”.