OK, then whichever side gets to choose “all of them” will load the deck with endless trivial variations of whichever algorithm benefits them most.
If the state was split 55/45 Dem, I would much rather have every district 55/45 Dem. That’s not too much of a handicap for a quality GOP representative to get elected, and conversely, the Dems had better put up a quality candidate to ensure that they hold onto the seat.
By splitting them into 55% guaranteed Dem districts v. 45% guaranteed GOP win districts, you get lousy candidates on each side who win with a ridiculous percentage of the vote and little incentive for a challenge, no matter how bad (Charlie Rangel, Alcee Hastings, and yes, Ron Paul, I’m looking at you).
Of course, if we go to proportional representation, that does an end-run around the whole gerrymandering problem, which becomes irrelevant.
I would love proportional representation at the State level. The parties would hate it (cue the fracturing of their control, and the elimination of primaries). I assume the whole thing would require a Constitutional Amendment?
It takes a heck of a lot of candidate quality to overcome a 10-point deficit.
At the very least a reversal by the Supreme Court.
Now, it obviously wouldn’t work (for House elections) in states with only one or two seats. Conversely, I would divide large states (such as mine) into districts, just not necessarily as many districts as they have seats. Like, all of New York City should vote for a slate of House members together. All of Los Angeles. All of San Francisco. All of Chicago. It seems odd to say that my interests are totally different from those of people five blocks over in the next district.
At the state level, I presume in any state it would require an amendment to the state constitution. Federally, maybe not.
Written in 1992, BTw.
Yes. But what if the state is split 55/45 GOP? 
It’s even worse than that. By now, for most of the Congressional races, the real election is the primary. This pushes candidates toward the extreme, since votes from the opposite party are irrelevant to them.
Not really. Most voters aren’t straight ticket voters. They will readily cross parties to vote for a superior candidate. Say there are 20% moderates in each party, it is nearly a wash.
Even better. 
Agreed. No way do some of these candidates even get nominated in competitive districts..
ETA: West Virginia’s party registration is 50 DEM/30 GOP/20 IND. Gop candidates routinely win here including Romney with 62% of the vote, the AG candidate, and a State Supreme Court justice. The House of Delegates is 54-46 DEM even with a 20 point advantage.
Got it in 7.
This “you cut the cake and I pick the peice” works fine if you don’t mind a perpetual two party system. There may be enough support in the bay area for a green party candidate but not enough to overcome conspiratorial gerrymanderign by both parties together.
With that said, i like that systemin a gameshow sort of way. Name that tune? I can draw congressional districts in 1 million linear miles. I can do it in 900,000 linear miles. 810,000…
Does the minority party ever get any input?
What if a 60% democrat 40% republican state sends 40% democrat 60% republicans to congress?
California has 55[?] congressmen. You make the candidates file in each county in which they wish to be considered (by getting some threshhold number of signatures in that county). That will limit the ballot to those people who thin k they have any votes to be gained in those counties. I suspect that the registration process would localize the candidates ballot access.
Very few candidates (except those with an eye towards statewide office in the future) would compete statewide.
I don’t mind whackadoodle candidates, i don’t even mind whackadoodle politicians. I mind when the deck is rigged so that the whackadoodle candidates become the favorites.
As someone born and raised and still living in California, I suspect that what would happen is, you would get 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans nominated in every county, and the smaller parties would end up fending for themselves. I have a feeling that a considerable number of people in every county would vote a straight party line ticket, so all 55 Democrats and 55 Republicans would “think they have any votes to gain” in even the smallest county.
Of course, now you have the problem of everybody having a ballot with 200+ names on it (and instructions to vote for up to 55 of them). Then again, California is used to that - there were almost 200 names on the 2003 “replace Gray Davis as governor if he is recalled” ballot.
You might as well have just one box per party on each ballot, and the party with the most votes gets all 55 seats. In fact, in order for it to be “true” proportional representation, that’s what you should do, but the seats are distributed proportionally among the parties.
I am not a fan of at-large representation, for one simple reason; you no longer have “your” representative in Congress. “Well, yes, we elected 55 Representatives from your party, but we thought it would be best if all of them came from southern California. We’ll get around to fixing the San Francisco area bridges and tunnels when we’re done with Los Angeles and San Diego…and Bakersfield…and Fresno…and Ontario…oh, and it will now be a crime to refer to a freeway by number without putting the word “The” in front if it.”
So make a list of every voting age person in a state, and eliminate districting entirely. Say the state has a state senate of 50 people, open the polls to anybody who wants to be a representative. If they can get 5000 signers on a petition, they go onto the poll. If they can get enough people to vote for them, they are in the state senate - simply run the poll and take the top 50 winners. Same for federal level senate and congress. Screw districting. Make them have to deal with the whole state instead of a handpicked little area.
Same for president - if you can get 25000 signatures on a petition, your name goes into the polls. Top 2 winners get to be president and vice president, no parties. Limit the advertising to 1 preset tv, radio and print commercial, it can be run 1ce per day per media outlet and no longer than 3 months pre-election. No phone calling. If they want to get out and knock on doors, or appear in shopping malls they can, but no further than 3 months in advance, and no electoral congress, straight voting. Once the polls are closed, whoever got the most people to vote wins.
It would never work, too many people are vested in making money off the whole political circus. Pity.
The variant I favor leaves the parties out of it entirely, and lets anyone have a voice who can get a single candidate elected. Which is still a barrier to entry, of course, but at the level of a state legislature it’s a surmountable one.
Bad idea. Parties are what make democracies sing and shout.
Well, I mean it officially leaves them out of it. Parties would still be involved as an emergent property, just like they emerged from a Constitution that didn’t mention them. In practice, I expect that the parties would probably do most of the work in developing the maps that the legislators would propose.
My notion was that everyone could vote for one and only one congressman.
Is your method used anywhere in the world? I’m afraid there’s much to find fault with in your proposal. I’d nominate it for worst proposal yet, except that that title goes, hands-down, to “assign voters to districts at random” (almost ensuring all representatives are of the same party).
A well-organized group, e.g. NRA or perhaps Teabaggers, would arrange to maximize the number of seats they get in your system. For softer coalitions, e.g. non-doctrinaire libertarian or green, voters would tend to vote for “big names.” If a “big name” greenie gets three times as many votes as he needs, that’s two little greenies who didn’t get elected.
Greenies might counter by negotiating in advance so that “big name” registers only in a few counties. Even ignoring that then “big name” might not even get elected, this path leads to more partisan “smoke-filled rooms”, not less.
(I’ve elaborated the specific problem of an over-popular candidate in detail. Other flaws in the method are left as exercise.)
Think about it. A couple of big names will get 40% of the vote. Another few of smaller names - 20%. Next 10 - another 20%. You have 40 or so names left with 20% of the vote left for them. Some will get 2%. Some will get 0.1% - and will still be in top 55. Do you really want a congressman elected by 0.1% of the vote in his state?