Should America do away with state voting districts?

[XDurionX]

Yet it's the only reason he won...

Proves him right, doesn't it?

[Zixxik]

Electoral college is an outdated system that should be removed, it was established because back then people did not know who was running for election and would make uneducated votes. Peoples votes should matter now days, not some corrupt guy being told to vote one way, but made his own decision and voted for the other.

[mizeri]

then california and new york would be deciding all elections

[Draco-Onis]

As much as this is a very honest question, it's hard to think you'll get an equally honest answer. People will always harp for change when things don't go their way because the grass is always greener.

Most people think our system is broken but no political party wants to reform it just in case the system works for them the next time. The most important thing should be whether we the people are being represented, I don't think anyone thinks that politicians picking their voters basically giving them lifetime terms is a good thing.

[Blur4stuff]

there should be additional reps based on vote numbers. let each district get their rep and then vote totals can send extra reps to ensure the population is actually getting equal representation.

[Foaming Clean]

I would be interested in doing away with Districts as they are and changing them to strictly match groups of Counties and award the representatives based on the population of each grouping. Currently, you have a large amount of Districts that will match County borders for low population areas but then cut up the higher populations in crazy ways.

Take Michigan, for example, they more or less follow this rule up until you get to the metro-Detroit area and then it turns into a shit show of trying to dilude voter pools on a block by block level. Something around 50% of the population is within metro-Detroit so instead of giving that population 7 house Reps, there are very large long districts that stretch in and cut off a portion of the population in order to justify turning what would have been 1 rural district into 2.

[Lenonis]

then california and new york would be deciding all elections

That's quite the exaggeration, however no one has really ever explained why the states with all the people shouldn't be the ones deciding the elections. At least not an argument that supports democracy.

I understand the danger of having no representation of rural areas in government, which is why I say keep the EC but eliminate the winner-takes-all approach in each state.

[Kanegasi]

No, but gerrymandering should be fixed. I get having to draw boundaries based on population, but that's apparently not the focus. District boundaries should work like zipcodes, just a vaguely circular blob covering an area with a voting center close to the geographical middle.

[Stormspellz]

Need to merge districts, and have the reps on alternating election cycles for the merged districts

[Lenonis]

After each census, you WILL have to redistrict and the only way to do it is as I described above. How would you ban people from taking advantage of data they can easily collect though?

That's why I say draw up federal guidelines that each state has to follow. And the only data you can use is number of heads. And probably the easiest way to manage is it have certain rules around the relative shape of each -- for example you have to have even lines from the center or somesuch. So you have circles and squares, not districts that resemble creatures out of hentai anime.

Will people still try to game that system? Sure. No doubt. But it would be a heck of a lot harder to end up with a state that votes 60% for one party but somehow only has 40% representation.

EDIT -- this isn't an unsolvable problem. Non-partisan councils for drawing districts exist and some states aren't gerrymandered. You just to make the rules uniform so one state doesn't get away with crazy doodles for districts to swing elections.

[Lenonis]

Again, how do you constraint people from using additional data? Will you lock them in a room with a closed system and they cannot come out until the redistricting is done?

You can mandate non-partisan independent groups to draw the districts for one. Or you can dictate certain criteria about deformity of the shape of the district.

As I stated this is a problem that has been solved. The problem is not every state is playing by the same rules. That's why I say it has to be a federal set of rules. I don't believe in states rights when it comes to bending the rules so hard they break just to keep power.

Mixed is easier, solves gerrymandering entirely, is reasonably easy to understand, maintains district level representation.

You have to have a representative that actually represents the views of that district. Having a deep red district represented by a democrat won't work.

[Raptor With a Saber]

yes and have the popular vote decide the president. Sure repubs would never win but oh well its a better vote system

[Lenonis]

And it won't happen in mixed-member. Realistically you might get a democrat or republican representing a district that they lost by 5%. If the district is deep red, its representative would get priority for the Republican seats allocated in that state after all.

I suppose that could work although I'm still not sure that would really create true representation. I'd have to work out the napkin math with an actual state to see how far off the reps would be from the populations.

However the reality is both your idea as well as mine will be opposed by those in power because their power is essentially driven by gerrymandering and the EC. Politicians in power aren't inclined to make rules against their own self-interest.

[Derpleton]

No way, this would be horrible. For example in my home state of New York upstate is mostly Republican while NYC and the areas surrounding it are mostly Democratic. I think that we can agree that by enacting a system where the entire state chooses its 27 representatives together that we would simply be sending 27 democrats and that anyone from upstate which wanted Republicans would never see representation in the federal government ever again.

[Lumineus]

The problem with this country is that there are far too many chiefs trying to keep the other chiefs from gaining any advantage.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Zoranon]

And it won't happen in mixed-member. Realistically you might get a democrat or republican representing a district that they lost by 5%. If the district is deep red, its representative would get priority for the Republican seats allocated in that state after all.

This would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional, representatives represent their districts, not their states. Besides MMP does not take away seats from candidates who won them, there are additional list seats that are meant to enforce proportionality. Of course the list seats are another thing that would be found unconstitutional if done nationwide, which would be the only way to do it.

[Teraparte]

Yet it's the only reason he won...

IKR... that's what's so funny about it. But, hell, I suppose many of us have said things and went back on it. At one point I hated garrisons in WoW, but eventually came to love them!

[Alydael]

The way I think we should handle campaigning and such is that each group has to sign up by the year of the election and can only spend a certain amount of money per candidate after their candidate is chosen the actually campaigning begins and from their they are official candidates at this point the funding for running is handled by the government itself each candidate gets the same amount of funds and can't use any outside funds.

I think we need to take a long, hard look at the way the system works to ensure fairness. Right now, you basically have no chance if you are not a Pub or Dem- so we are essentially blocked from all the good ideas and progress that could come from anyone not locked in the dem/ Pub mindset.

Everyone should have a chance, even if they aren't a pub or dem.

Also, I think we need to look at these "donations." Let's be honest, it's influence peddling and it needs to stop.