IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,586
|
 |
« on: February 21, 2017, 06:42:14 AM » |
|
What does "non-geographic proportional representation" even mean though? I don't know if you're advocated for US-wide list PR or something and if you are I'd want to stress that would be a bad idea for a country like the US: its way, way too big and diverse for that sort of system. Plus also a list with 535+ names on it would necessitate closed list PR which would heavily empower party elites and : if there's someone who's not very popular then you can just insist on keeping him number 4 on the list and guarantees that he'll always be around; or if someone does something to piss off the party leadership then you'll conveniently see them put in the 436th place on the list for the next election; meaning that you'd need like 75% of the vote to get them back. Plus there'd be no real way of running meaningful primary elections under this sort of system.
If you wanted to make Congress more proportional you still need to retain a level of local representation; its far, far too important for the American system. The two systems that come to mind are MMP or STV; both would require a larger congress and probably either merging states together (for the former for list regions; for the latter to get the 4-5 seats you need for proportionality) unless you were to have a small malapportionment in favour of the smaller states to prevent that. For the former I'd also have some kind of open list (either a fully open list in regional areas maybe with a few national balancing seats to ensure proportionality or a national list with the best placed losing candidates getting allocated seats) just to avoid the situation where parties could give someone unpopular a high place on the list to guarantee election, or punish people by moving them down the list.
|
Poll
