Hacker News Reader

Comment by elihu | Hacker News Reader

Probably the best way is to not have the districts in the first place. If a state has five representatives, run a single state-wide election with five winners, using some variant of proportional representation.

Even better: modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got.

Both of those are pretty major reforms, so absent those probably the best thing is to make sure the redistricting process is not controlled by a single party, and maybe imposing some restrictions on how complex the shapes can be.

View on HN

> modify the fundamental nature of the House of Representatives such that a representative's voting power is proportional to the share of the vote they got.

Germany does that. They have districts, which get to send the winner in each district to parliament. But these only account for a part of the total seats available.

The others are filled up from a party list in such a way that the proportions are equal to the proportions of the votes.

That way you get the best of both worlds, you have representatives that have a connection to each district, but you still have the distribution in parliament that represent the actual distribution of the votes.

We do the same here in New Zealand. It's called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...

Hungary does this too, and the party list seats are filled in a way that increases the influence of smaller parties. The first seat goes to the party with the most votes, but once that seat's assigned, the winning party's vote total is cut to 1/2. Then the next seat is assigned to whoever has the most votes afterwards, and the winner's total is cut to 1/2 if it's their first time winning, or 1/3 if it's their second time winning. And so on.

The Hungarian system is pretty much useless since the reform in 2013. Before 2013 party candidates that did not win the districts contributed their votes to the list vote totals. This is losers compensation. Since then we have a winners' compensation: winners also contribute their extra district votes (the difference of their votes and the second place candidate's) to the list totals. This exacerbates gerrymandering and pretty much guarantees the 2/3s majority needed for amending the constitution to Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party with their 45%-55% popular vote.

What you're describing seems to be the D'Hondt method which favors larger parties, not smaller parties.

We have a similar system for a Scottish Parliament elections (Additional Member System). But it is still FPTP for the Westminster elections.

Then you end up with representatives that represent dense areas, and the rural folks don’t like that.

Almost as if rural folk don't actually care about democracy

Almost as if rural folk have VERY different needs than urban ones and having their needs be unmet due to being the minority.

The problem is, urban areas have grown so massive that they can just screw over rural areas by sheer numbers - in Germany, 77% of voters live in urban or agglomeration areas, that's way blowing past the usual 2/3rds-majority requirements.

At that point, who is to prevent parties from solely catering to urban area voters at the complete expense of rural voters? It's already seen as problematic that most public investments like infrastructure get directed towards urban areas, the term "flyover states" exists for a reason and we've been seeing for the last decade just how damaging that can be for a democracy.

[1] https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/leben/stadt-und-land-fak...

Don't forget state elections! Tons of state legislatures are affected by gerrymandering, too. It's frustrating that my city's representation is cracked and packed away.

Than who advocate for you? Having a local representative s an essential part of getting government by to work for you.

Have a look at Mixed Member Proportional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...

I consider it a feature that Congress doesn’t map directly to party voting proportions.

This is smug nonsense. In a PR system there will be more than 2 parties, and Americans that love their "they all suck" badge of honor will find something worth identifying with.

Moving towards pluralism would be the number one way in which the US could rejuvenate their democracy.

Absolutely!

That was unnecessarily dismissive, as I was being quite sincere.

It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party. It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations.

The current system is not without faults, such as gerrymandered districts and the various factors that contribute to us having a rigid two-party system. I suspect a lot of people on HN would rather throw it all out and have strict proportional voting and/or equal-population districts. However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Are there districts that are low on people, industry, and agriculture that get representation based purely on their size?

The Senate

I really still degree on all of that

> It is a feature, not a bug, that we elect an individual rather than a party

Not it is not. Politics is "team sport". Vetting individuals (look at Sinema's bleeding heart eyeroll to pure cravenness transformation) is hard. Vetting organizations is much easier.

> It is likewise a benefit that our distribution of representatives is weighted somewhat by geography and (indirectly) economics rather than purely by population. Should flyover country count less than coastal areas because farming automation has reduced agricultural jobs per acre compared with LA or NYC? Yes, certainly, but to what degree is the question. The industrial and agricultural importance of these areas means that we are better off when we give them larger representation per-capita than they might otherwise expect due to their meagre populations.

This is ridiculous. This is not the 19th century; Industry and Agriculture are big enterprises that are perfectly capable of being run on a national scale. If you want to promote them, do so based on the national interest with industrial policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_policy. Land-based representation promotes backwards romanticism, not well-engineered modernity.

The Senate giving us stupid things like corn ethanol is not a policy success of unfair representation!

> However that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Do you really think tons of parliamentary systems around the world are hurting because they through out some sort of "baby" by adoption fair representation?

Why?

I live in a country where I pick a party to represent me in the national government, not a local person, and it seems to work just fine.

Scaling - you live in a country the size of California with a quarter of that states population ( ~10 million ).

Large countries have different issues in areas that for you would be two or three whole European countries distant, and countries with larger populations have many multiples of your entire population to represent.

Those problems should be solved locally and often have no right to be influential on the national level. The fact that some areas are heavily invested in fossil fuel shouldn't cause the nation to stop a transition to renewables, but that's what seems to be happening a lot in the US.

In stead, at a national level, a transition can be started and budget can be created to support the states that will be negatively affected. The way that budget is handled locally will then depend on local politicians who can be voted on and need to show that they're actually doing the right thing locally.

Right now, national level politicians can get reelected locally because they're just obstructionists that want nothing to ever change. They'll never actually have to do anything except fund raise and pretend to care about their constituents by blocking anything those constituents don't like. It's a great way for a couple of people to make lots of money while killing the country.

If I am having some problem with the federal government, I can call up my local representative and their office will help me sort it out. If it's a situation where I'm being treated unfairly or not according to the law, a sternly written letter from the representative usually sorts things out. If it is a case of the law being unjust, they might get the law changed, if it's not a politically difficult problem.

You might find it surprising that this actually happens in a country of 330M people and just 435 representatives, but it does. In part because only a small percentage of people need this service, but everyone benefits from having it as a contingency plan. Helping a single constituent can pay big dividends at election time as they tell their friends, family, and social media about your help. Likewise, not helping can cause great harm as you alienate your voter base.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com