BG: Let’s discuss both!
Let’s say you got one congressmen for every million citizens. Rounded off this means every level of population from 500,000 - 1,499,999 gets a representative. Wyoming, the least populous state, has a population of 506,529, so it makes it in at the lower end of the scale.
Here’s what each state would get:
Alabama 5
Alaska 1
Arizona 6
Arkansas 3
California 36
Colorado 5
Connecticut 4
Delaware 1
DC 1 (I threw this in)
Florida 17
Georgia 9
Hawaii 1
Idaho 1
Illinois 13
Indiana 6
Iowa 3
Kansas 3
Kentucky 4
Louisiana 5
Maine 1
Maryland 6
Massachusetts 6
Michigan 10
Minnesota 5
Mississippi 3
Missouri 6
Montana 1
Nebraska 2
Nevada 2
New Hampshire 1
New Jersey 9
New Mexico 2
New York 19
North Carolina 9
North Dakota 1
Ohio 11
Oklahoma 4
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania 12
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina 4
South Dakota 1
Tennessee 6
Texas 22
Utah 2
Vermont 1
Virginia 7
Washington 6
West Virginia 2
Wisconsin 6
Wyoming 1
A lot of strange things in this thread.
Firstly, many, if not most proportional representation based democracies have an area factor. Less populated areas have more representatives, similar to the systems for electing representatives to the US House. Where I live the difference between the most populated and least populated ‘election district’ is 1.8, - ref This Year’s Model’s (and on preview Little Nemo’s) post.
Ref Giles’s posts, Australia (AFAIK) and a few other former British colonies, plus Great Britain itself, are exceptions in a world proportional representation, as they elect representatives from single-member constituencies. 3 main systems apply: winner takes all in a multi-member-district (US), winner takes all in a single-member-district (Australia, Great Britain, Canada, formerly New Zealand ??)), and proportional representation in a multi-member-district (the rest of the world, basically).
As for Quartz’s comment, I really don’t see the problem. In essence, party politics means that party leaders are bound to follow the party program, as determined by registered party members. So you’re really voting for a political platform, and not for a person who might do a 180 later on, a preferrable method IMO. But even so, some democracies include the option of grading party representatives on election day, meaning you first choose a political platform (party) on the ballot, then you choose the person of that party who I/you feel is best suited to do the job.
Can you cite a case that applies to states and not to districting for the federal House of Representatives?
Australian parliaments are elected using **both ** single-member districts **and ** multi-member districts. The Commonwealth and state parliaments have various different approaches for their lower and upper houses.
Basically, in those houses of parliament where there are single-member districts, the voting method is a preferential one. The successful candidate is required to obtain an absolute majority of the votes cast. If necessary, voters’ preferences are distributed until one candidate obtains an absolute majority.
For the houses of parliament where there are multi-member districts, various forms of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method are used. To be elected a candidate must obtain a quota of votes. If a candidate gets more than a quota, his surplus votes are transferred to the remaining candidates according to the voters’ preferences. This process continues until all of the positions in the multi-member district have been filled.
This system was made illegal in the 1960s. Now all members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected in single-member districts. (I suppose you could count the presidential electoral college and U.S. Senate elections as a type of winner takes all in multi member districts, but those situations are a bit different.)
I assume that proportional representation in multi-member districts are still theoretically legal under the U.S. system, although no state employs such a system.
That was my point too. I think our system would be much more honest with strong platform-based parties.
For me, the character of a candidate is an important electoral issue. If someone’s going to head or be on an important committee (U.S.) or become a Minister (U.K.) or more, I don’t want some party hack who is more concerned with their position in the Party than their electorate; I want someone whom I can trust to make the right decision.
And how has that worked out for you?
In my view, American politicians have become experts at exploiting this sentiment. In reality, you can’t really be sure of a person’s true character. All that is relevant to me is his or her public actions. And under a strong party system, when you find your party, you can become active in it to make sure that the right kind of people rise to the top (with varying degrees of effectiveness).
And what’s the “right” decision anyway? To me, it’s dependent on your policy positions. If the candidate is bound to a platform you agree with, then one would think that, speaking broadly, the most important policy decisions are taken care of.
And I don’t think our system has been any more successful than a strong-party system in handling “party hacks.”
Certainly. Probably the most famous of the cases in that line.
Yes, I’m referring to US senate and presidential elections, as House elections are affected by them instead of the other way around. There’s actually nothing wrong with a winner-takes-it-all system per se, the problem is that political debate converges at two political parties. Few will vote for the guy/girl who surely will loose (throwing ones vote away and all that). Political debate needs to have more than two fronts.
Cunctator, thanks for the clarification ref Australia.
I understand your position perfectly. But history has shown that this works out to the advantage of the voters anyway. Party leaders who ‘forget’ where they are coming from seem to end up stepping down or hidden away anyway, as to not to taint the rest of the party.
There’s a general perception that a representative from a single-member district is representing voters in his/her own constituency first, and voters in other constituencies second - while representatives from multi-member districts are representing their own party first and other party’s voters second. That the difference lies here is a load a crap. Any representative has to toe to the party line in everyday political life, while voicing the concerns of voters in his/her constituency. It’s a balancing act. Candidates to a single-member district seat simply gains a lot more visibility, creating the image that they are more ‘accountable’ somehow. That’s not true.
I know that some people (Fox style argument, he) claim that if we should go by news stories alone on senators and house representatives, the ratio of morally questionable politicians in the US is probably the highest in the western world. There were several in the last election alone. It does seem that elsewhere parties are able to weed out many of these types because they now it will come back to haunt them later.
You might think the re-distribution of US House seats is a relatively simple process. Well, it ain’t.
Various assignment methods have been used or proposed–they all have problems and some have paradoxs. One of the more infamous is called the Alabama paradox, increasing the House by one meant Alabama would lose a seat!
http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/apportionment/appmeth.htm#Apportionment
I’m aware that it is not a simple system, few are. Wikipedia has a good round up:
On re-read I should take the opportunity to retract my above statement, as I have no factual evidence nor cites to back it up, nor do I believe America is place with loads of bad representatives. My thoughts were in the general direction of incidents like the Torricelli and Traficant-cases, the Delay-debacle, the Ryan scandal in Illinois, the Lott-controversy, and the near meltdown of Jim Bunning’s campaign last year. But my home country has had its fair share of scandals as well (and I’m not even speaking of Italy).
My point was that it’s easy for a candidate to fool voters if you got money, but party politics seems to restrain that a bit.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my un-cited post and for the hijack.
The 1962 Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr), established the “one person, one equal vote” principle for state legislatures, giving federal courts jurisdiction to remedy cases of “malapportionment” (districts with unequal populations). Later cases applied this principle to U.S. H of R districte.
This is an incorrect statement. Baker v. Carr held only that reapportionment was a justiciable question, and not a political question. It was not until Reynolds v. Sims, which I cited above, that “one person, one vote” became the “rule.”
I might add, it helps if you actually read the link you provide. 
Personaaly, I wouldn’t even sub-divide the larger states. House seats per state would be established by the 10-year census, and these seats would be up for election in the next election two years later. If a state has X House seats, the top X vote-getters (each voter chooses one of the candidates) in a statewide election would serve as the state’s Congresspersons. This would have the wonderful effect of eliminating Congressional gerrymandering, which has been used to such effect in recent years to make most House seats unassailable.
Where in the U.S. do we use multi-member districts? (I suppose you could think of every state as a two-member district for electing senators, but that doesn’t really count, since they’re chosen in separate elections and each one is plurality-based winner-take all – like the “at-large” city and county council seats introduced in many Southern states after Reconstruction, for the express purpose of freezing out black candidates who could never hope to get 50%
+1 of the whole town’s votes.)
Nitpick: In essence, party politics means that the party’s elected officials are bound to follow the party program as determined by the party’s long-serving institutional leaders, not its rank-and-file membership. That’s how it works, AFAIK, in countries that still have real party organizations independent of the party’s representatives in government. Which would still be better than what we’ve got in the U.S., where a party label is a mere brand name and every elected official is an independent entrepreneur.
Sorry, my mind was on presidential elections. Bad habit.
To continue the nitpick, the party’s elected officials are bound to follow the party program as determined by elected representatives from local party groups coming together at the annual party conference. 
This conference also elects the party’s institutional leaders. Locally, each party group is the one determining who should be on the top of the party list in their district. Exceptions are in plenty though.
I phrased a line badly before. I said that party politics seems to limit the number of bad politicians, but what I meant was that multi-party politics do that. Partially because bad ethics reflects more back on the party, and partially because as I voter I can always vote for my second favorite party, instead of voting for a guy I wouldn’t trust to handle my garbage because I don’t want the other side to win.