Low turnout does not equal voter suppression. Never under estimate voter apathy, candidate charisma, weather, ,pandemic, lack of local races, lack of hot button issues, etc.
Post 11, if I’m understanding the question correctly:
/Better ways to reapportion Congress - #11 by Pleonast
I listed some effects of apportioning in the way I proposed, not the criteria necessary to implement it.
I know, that’s why I listed it as a separate effect.
I think apportionment should have nothing to do with states. Lines should ignore state boundaries and simply create equal-population districts based on rational geographical-economic regions. In very densely populated areas, there should be at-large candidates chosen by proportional representation. And the geographic representation should be supplemented by extra seats for proportional representation (as in New Zealand)
Explain, please.
To put it simply, if a party’s geographic district results leave it with disproportionately lower representation than indicated by the overall party vote, it is awarded extra non-geographic seats from its party list.
That eliminates gerrymandering as a way to screw a party out of its proportional popularity. But also preserves the idea of representation for geographic units.
People who actually voted or eligible voters?
If it is people who actually voted then you skew heavily in favor of the elderly since young people are historically low in voter turnout.
If it is eligible voters then you are where we are now.
Not quite.
Eligible voters doesn’t include the under-18 population and in many states doesn’t include the prison population, ex-felon population. The Census does.
Lots of small towns love a prison; it brings in jobs and outside tax dollars and makes their resident’s voters have 10x or 20x the voting power of nearby districts without a prison.