10mo ago

Does this plan make sense? v2

You're viewing a single thread.

377 comments

Merging the two houses won't help. We need proportional representation. Make the senate 600 seats, and a national, proportional election (seats are given based on % of votes for the party). They're still 6 year terms, with elections every two years. Seats are given to any party that can clear 0.5% to start, then the threshold is increased to 2% after 12 years. Then expand the house. Now you have local reps and proportional reps. Much better than giving "states" reps, which makes almost no sense.
- We need proportional representation.
  That's what the House is for.
  
  The house is Local Representation. You don't vote for what party you want to see control the house, you vote for a local representative to represent you and your neighbors.
  
  It is also that. The two are by necessity the same thing.
  
  No?
  Proportional representation is where parties get a number of seats proportional to the percent of votes they get.
  Proportional voting methods are often nation-wide, although there's also e.g. mixed member proportional and local 3-5 member districts elected via STV like they do in Ireland.
  
  By making them the same thing, you encourage gerrymandering. In the US, there's no way for a third party to gain any representation. A national, proportional election would force the issue and allow for more diversity in political thought.
  
  But not in the same way that actual proportional representation works. They're distributed by population yes, but they're tied to a geographical location. Real proportional representation is national. So you have one legislative body tied to a district they're supposed to represent, and another tied to the base of voters across the country that elected them.

377 comments