[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Smaller states would have one slate of candidates. Larger states like Florida, Texas, California, etc. could be divided into contiguous regions (whose lines are divided by county) that would each choose 7-15 candidates say. Such a scheme would leave less scope for gerrymandering.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but the Supreme Court said no multi-member districts a while ago, though I’m not sure what case it was.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Sorry, but the Supreme Court said no multi-member districts a while ago, though I’m not sure what case it was.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the Court ever said that. There’s a federal law saying that states with more than one House seat can’t have multi-member or at large elections, though.
In fact, the court upheld multi-member districts (for a state legislature) in Whitcomb v Chavis. The argument the court rejected was that multi-member districts were discriminatory against the poor and minorities, and also that they unconstitutionally diluted votes.
Post 7 from the Ontario thread:
Considering what I’ve seen of the inner workings of the GOP & the Dems in my hometown, I think that’s a fair reason.