New House Bill Would Kill Gerrymandering & move America away from two-party swamp dominance

[basquebromance]

New House Bill Would Kill Gerrymandering and Could Move America Away From Two-Party Dominance

If the US used proportional representation, like most modern democracies, there would be no Clinton-Trump or Jones-Moore elections, because conservative and lefty voters would have lots of parties to choose from in general election time. A reminder..

This legislation by Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) is a step towards getting us there, a reminder that Ro is one of the more forawrd-looking lawmakers on the Hill

 

[tinydancer]

Long overdue. Kudos to that Congress critter. Well done.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

 

[Coyote]

New House Bill Would Kill Gerrymandering and Could Move America Away From Two-Party Dominance

If the US used proportional representation, like most modern democracies, there would be no Clinton-Trump or Jones-Moore elections, because conservative and lefty voters would have lots of parties to choose from in general election time. A reminder..

This legislation by Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) is a step towards getting us there, a reminder that Ro is one of the more forawrd-looking lawmakers on the Hill

I would love to see that!

 

[Coyote]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

Nope. Move to Europe or Israel if you want that crap!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

 

[william the wie]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

How do you think?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

Nonsense, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates gerrymandering, particularly by specific political parties or their operatives.

And Congress has the right and the power, as do the states, to require "all congressional districts to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions, establish multi-member districts, and have all districts use what’s known as ranked-choice voting (RCV)."

In fact, several states have already outlawed gerrymandering and courts have struck down the power of a political party to draw its own districts.

On a practical level, the moral argument is even more compelling.
Gerrymandering, Citizens United, electoral college, a reasonable argument is that you get to PICK ONE but you don't get to have ALL THREE.
And since gerrymandering is essentially the process by which candidates get to pick their voters instead of voters picking their candidates, and since it enjoys ZERO constitutional protections whatsoever, it is logical to pass a law to permanently dispense with it immediately, and it does not require any amendment whatsoever.
All it requires is the submission of a bill before Congress, support and the vote.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And....watch for it to happen in 2018, after we sweep both chambers.

 

[william the wie]

Completely unConstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

States can do this on their own because it is left to the states to determine representation.

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

How do you think?

Look at the Israeli Knesset or California's jungle primaries. Gerrymandering is much less destructive of liberty.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is correct.

But I do think it would be a good idea.

If we're going to tear it all up and start from scratch, though - I'd go with switching to a Parliamentary-style legislative branch.

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

How do you think?

Look at the Israeli Knesset or California's jungle primaries. Gerrymandering is much less destructive of liberty.

You'll have to be more specific. What about them would you like me to look at?

 

[OKTexas]

New House Bill Would Kill Gerrymandering and Could Move America Away From Two-Party Dominance

If the US used proportional representation, like most modern democracies, there would be no Clinton-Trump or Jones-Moore elections, because conservative and lefty voters would have lots of parties to choose from in general election time. A reminder..

This legislation by Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) is a step towards getting us there, a reminder that Ro is one of the more forawrd-looking lawmakers on the Hill

Let me know when they get the constitutional amendment passed and ratified. Congress doesn't have the power to dictate this.


.

 

[william the wie]

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

How do you think?

Look at the Israeli Knesset or California's jungle primaries. Gerrymandering is much less destructive of liberty.

You'll have to be more specific. What about them would you like me to look at?

How would that look?

Well, instead of having individual districts for each representative, each state would be given a total number of seats in the house. We could leave it the same as now, or boost the number up a little - but it would still be proportional based on population.

Before each election, each state party would release a list. On election day, each voter in the state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Then, after the election is over, the total number of representatives would be apportioned by the percentage of the vote that they won - and those seats would be assigned by going down that party's list.

That would be worse than what we have now.

How do you think?

Look at the Israeli Knesset or California's jungle primaries. Gerrymandering is much less destructive of liberty.

You'll have to be more specific. What about them would you like me to look at?

third to nth party lawsuits, California jungle primaries, all minority governments all of the time and representatives who do not give a damn about anyone outside their own party and only those districts that voted for him vs. the other party Xers. Not to mention caretaker governments and votes of no confidence running up electoral expenses. This was the system that made the Weimar Republic such a grand success. Think CA on steroids