297
“Voters are sick of the 2-party system. A new poll shows they’re open to big changes” (electionlawblog.org)
submitted 3 months ago by [B] to c/politics@lemmy.world
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

You can have proportional voting where votes go to specific people. Basically just do away with House districts and then have X slots. Top X vote getters get elected. You can also have a form of ranked choice where excess votes (beyond what's needed to secure a position) get proportionally spread among the other candidates according to their second choices.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    But that is functionally identical to what we have now: in a district with 5 slots, D's run 5 candidates, R's run 5 candidates, most people pick D or R down the line. A district can still be drawn to favor one over the other, except instead of 1 safe seat, you have 5 safe seats.

    The only change would be that an impactful third party can only change one of those five safe seats. By moving to this sort of proportional representation, you actually dilute third parties' power further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Proportional voting doesn't give X votes to each voter. You can just look up how these different options work instead of imagining that they're dumb and you were the one to figure out an obvious flaw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    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%.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •