I think the current case law is that a state’s inherent police power does not extend to Congressional elections (on the grounds that since Congress is created by the Constitution, only the Constitution can delegate the authority to regulate it), so if a particular form of districts isn’t a “manner,” then states can’t have districts either.
I suspect that the goal of expanding the size of the districts is as a bone to the parties, so that they might vote for the law. The thinking would be that, with (for example) a whole-state district, then whatever the lean of the state then so goes the representatives. Ranked voting or not, if it’s a heavy-Republican state, then the high ranks for Republicans will overload the high ranks for the Democrats, because there’s simply more voters on that side. And vice versa for the Democrats.
That ability to lock in a state might, as said, be enough of a lure to make the parties actually consider the Act.
Whether or not that would actually play out in that manner and whether that would be strong enough to offset any possible positive ramifications of ranked voting would be hard to say.
I think I could actually write a quicky simulator of it though. I’ll post an update once (if) I do.
It’s not likely to have this effect. It doesn’t have it in other places where the system is actually used. It tends to allocate seats more nearly proportional to the share of votes, and (vis-a-vis the current system) this would tend to disadvantage the major parties and advantage minor parties and independents.
Much depends on the degree of party loyalty that voters display. In my (very simplified) example above, I assume that all the voters who gave their first preference to a Dem candidate would do the same with their second and third preferences, only then (if at all) assigning lower preferences to Rep candidates, and I made the same assumption for Rep voters. In the real world many voters do not behave like this. Voters might, for example, vote for candidates who are local to them, and assign lower preferences to candidates from further away. Or they might priority ethnicity over party. Or gender. Or anything, really.
The quicky simulator will be very interesting, but its outcome will largely depend on the assumption you make when designing it about how people will allocate their second and subsequent preferences. We have no real-world data on this, because in elections to date they have not needed or been allowed to express more than one preference.
Did Maine/Australia/etc. expand the districts when they implemented ranked voting?
No.
There were 75 seats in the 1914 Federal poll under FPTP won by Hughes’s Nationalists Party.
There were 75 seats in the 1919 Federal poll under preference voting and won by Hughes.
American elections have become tragically corrupt and undemocratic. It would be neat-o keen-o if there were a simple mechanical fix, but color me skeptical. Very skeptical.
In fact, I would reject ALL attempts to change electoral mechanics, and for a very simple reason. There are two types of political opinion leaders in the U.S.: good-spirited people and cheaters. For a change to be implemented it will need support both from good-spirited people AND from cheaters. Good-spirited people may support a change that happens to help the cheaters if they think it’s an improvement theoretically. Cheaters will support a change if and only if it helps them cheat.
Therefore, any electoral “reform” that gets sufficient support to be enacted ** (nationally, or in a state dominated by the cheaters) will benefit the cheaters.** Sorry to rain on your parade.
No, but Australia operates ranked voting in single-seat electorates, whereas what is proposed for the US in this thread, as I understand it, is ranked voting in multi-seat electorates.
I’d note that at large elections is a legacy of Jim Crow, first off. The reason I open that can of worms is because the Democratic bill attempts to achieve a similar end: rather than attempting to fix a flaw in the electoral system that is neutral, they perceive a flaw where they didn’t before because they now lose elections. Southerners wanted at large elections so they wouldn’t elect blacks. Democrats want at large elections so they won’t elect Republicans. Sorry, but losing elections because the 230 year old rules disadvantage you is not a flaw that needs to be fixed. Times change, eventually Democrats won’t be geographically concentrated. Do they then go back and restore the old system when it advantages them? That’s not how democracy is supposed to work, that’s manipulation of democracy.
If you can’t win suburban and rural voters, change to appeal to them.
What happened in Maine is a move to ranked-choice voting in single-seat constituencies. While I am wholeheartedly in support of that, I want to go further. As it stands, Maine couldn’t go with multi-member constituencies for Congress because it would conflict with federal statute as described earlier in this thread.
Short version- This proposal uses (almost) the same system that is used to elect the Australian Senate to elect the U.S. House of Representatives. It does not address the U.S. Senate. IMO, I think that would be a good place for single-member ranked-choice voting (like the Australian House of Representatives).
Here’s my problem with that. District A, an urban district votes 90-10 Democrat. As a result, they get one Democratic representative. District B, a combination suburban and rural district, votes 60-40 Republican, and thus gets one Republican representative. This is how it’s supposed to work. District A doesn’t get an extra representative because they feel REALLY strongly about voting Democrat.
The single transferable vote is fundamentally different from Jim Crow-era at-large elections. As a form of proportional representation, it increases the voting power of minorities by ensuring their preferences are taken into account when electing candidates. Respectfully, I don’t think you would say what you’re saying if you knew how STV actually works.
To use your example of black voters in the South, under STV they would clearly be able to elect black representatives without being packed into majority-minority districts. In the deep South where politics tends to break down along racial lines, this would greatly enhance the ability of minorities to elect candidates that represent their interests. Let’s look at Alabama for a second- they have seven seats in the House of Representatives. Currently, they are represented by six Republicans and one Democrat, who are all in gerrymandered safe seats. (Democrats are packed in the 7th district.)
Just eyeballing election results, slightly more than a third of Alabama voters generally vote Democratic. With the racial polarization in Alabama politics, that’s mostly composed of the slightly more than a quarter of the population that’s black, and the 10-15% of white voters who are Democrats. Clearly, Democrats are underrepresented. Under STV, they would likely win 2 seats and may be competitive for a third.
In some cases STV would help Republicans- see my earlier example of Massachusetts.
Democrats are underrepresented in Alabama only if we elect parties rather than people. We do not. Every district elects exactly who they want to elect to represent them. The fact that one district votes 90-10 for Democrats doesn’t mean they should get an extra rep.
Now granted I’m sure there’s some unkosher gerrymandering going on there too, and if Democrats want to try to gain seats by making district drawing party neutral, that’s a good thing. But simply trying to manipulate the system to produce more Democratic seats is not the way to do things.
Yes the districts vote for whom they want, but they are placed into the districts by politicians. STV doesn’t give anyone “extra reps”; it creates larger districts with representation awarded proportionally within each district, with the preferences of all voters going toward determining the outcome. It doesn’t manipulate the system to produce more Democratic seats; in this one example it probably helps the Dems, but there are many places where it would likely help Republicans or minor parties.
The larger districts are meant to give urban districts more representatives at the expense of rural districts. It will help Republicans in places where the cities aren’t overwhelmingly Democratic but rural districts are overwhelmingly Republican, but that’s not really an answer either. This is all about correcting an issue where Democrats win more votes but get less seats. Which is a temporary condition that can be easily corrected by just appealing to different voters.
:smack: It gives rural voters the same power as urban voters in proportion to their population. I’m just not sure how else to explain it.
You explained it quite well. It “corrects” the system by making urban and rural voters equal in terms of party representation. Except they are already equal when it comes to electing individual representatives, which is what our system is designed for.
Urban voters are only diminished in their representation because they vote in higher percentages for one party than rural voters do. That is not a problem that needs to be corrected.
That contributes to the issue, I suppose. And I think we’re at the core of our disagreement- I believe first-past-the-post is fundamentally flawed.
It is in some ways, I agree. And before there was a Democratic/Republican discrepancy in proportional representation, there were proposals to do some different things. Jungle primaries for example, which I think are a great idea, although very inconvenient for party committees. Ranked voting in single member districts as well. And of course the old, “none of the above” choice which forces a new election with new candidates. But this proposal seems specifically tailored to achieve a partisan result, nationally: more Democratic representation in the House. Next step will be to change the Senate, although that’s a lot tougher.
My post punted on the ranked voting question. I was just talking about expanding the electoral districts to encompass the whole state.
No, adaher. Just no. If we wanted to elect Democrats, all we’d have to do is put Republicans in prison.