A party-centered electoral system is better than a candidate-centered system

[Captain_Carrot]

@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.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court said no multi-member districts a while ago, though I’m not sure what case it was.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Captain Carrot

Sorry, but the Supreme Court said no multi-member districts a while ago, though I’m not sure what case it was.

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.

[foolsguinea]

Post 7 from the Ontario thread:

@cowgirl

And you can’t tell me that parties don’t already have some degree of control over who wins local nomination contests. In effect, then, there’s already something of a “party list” system in place, it’s just completely hidden. Under MMP they would be obliged to bring it out in the open.

Considering what I’ve seen of the inner workings of the GOP & the Dems in my hometown, I think that’s a fair reason.