Probably not a bad idea, but even if it were allowed, would any state actually implement it?
I think the two main problems with that are, how do you implement it so that there is “local representation” (i.e. there needs to be someone for each person in the state to be able to call “my” representative), and how do you prevent an area where most people belong to one party from having a representative representing not only the other party, but acting in the interests of an entirely different section of the state?
-
You could create the districts after the election for representation but …
-
Why do you need districts? Wouldn’t “your” representative be the one that best represents your interests? Kind of like how your state’s two Senator works.
It would probably set through the initiative process.
I’ll answer #2 first; you pretty much answered it yourself - your Senators are who you turn to for “statewide” matters; your Representative is there to handle concerns on a more local level. This is why the Constitution says that bills to raise revenue have to start in the House; it’s the chamber “closer to the people.”
As for #1, I did have one idea:
- Voters don’t vote for specific candidates, but for a party. This also prevents the situation where, in a large state, somebody is going to complain, “If I get 50 votes (because the state has 50 Representatives), then I want to be able to cast all 50 for a fringe candidate.” (This is quite common among people who, among other things, try to get “dissenting voices” onto major corporations’ Boards of Directors.)
- Have somebody draw up the districts for that state.
- Each party submits a list of districts in “preference order,” with one candidate specified per district.
- Use a method similar to the one used to determine how many seats in the House each state gets to determine which party gains seats, one at a time; as each seat is awarded, the district that is highest on that party’s list among those that have not been assigned yet is given to that party’s specified candidate for that district.
Yes, it is possible for a party’s list to include candidates who not only do not live anywhere near the district they are assigned to, but have no connection with that area; how is that different from how it works now? (The only requirements are, a Representative has to be at least 25 years old, a citizen of the US for at least the past seven years, and a current resident of the state.)
Personally, I’m fond of the idea of Monte Carlo democracy, at least for the House. If your state has 10 Representatives, then you pick 10 citizens at random. Though, I’d actually tweak it slightly, that each of the randomly-picked citizens can choose to serve themself, or they can name some other person they think would be better for the job.
This way, you get fair representation of all demographics, based on geography, political views, age, race, sex, whatever, and you bypass Arrow’s Theorem.
Though, I suppose that in practice, you’d have to make very certain that the random selection process was both perfectly transparent and bulletproof secure, because it’d probably be easy to corrupt.
Very easy- as those randos would then simply sell their seat to the highest bidder.
Interests do vary by location. There are real geographic inputs to economies that might only affect those in the area. Something that might be economically devastating in in a small part of the state could be a tiny issue in the overall statewide interests.
Imagine a district that is heavily involved in shmoo mining/farming or relies heavily on tourism to the wild areas inhabited by the highly sought after but reclusive wild shmoos. A relatively centrist candidate who’s got a well thought out shmoo position might be able to clean up as they attract voters from both parties who heavily weight those issues. Finding a candidate who puts time and effort into developing sound shmoo related policy is likely tough in a statewide race. Many statewide voters may not know enough, or care, about shmoos. It’s reasonable to expect most statewide candidates to mirror that broader electorate’s ignorance and lack of concern.
I’ve been calling that sortition, or demarchy, and those of us who like it are regretfully few in number.
However, I would have a two-tiered lottery and wouldn’t allow a selected representative to hand off the job. If you want to participate, then you have to be willing to do the job yourself. Pick about a hundred candidates from the pool. Then I would have a voir dire process to eliminate at least some of the crazies before a final drawing for the 10 representatives.
I haven’t worked out yet who would process the voir dire.
Because most people vote that way, and it makes sense to offer a simple option for lots of people to use.