Combine Single Member Districts with Proportional Representation.

[Beet]

One common problem with electoral systems that use single member districts is gerrymandering. Nonpartisan redistricting does not eliminate the problem, because even with geographically compact districts, there is a bonus given to parties with particular geographic distributions of supporters. How can those who believe in true proportional representation fix this, while preserving the good aspects of the current system?

We should move to a mixed single member district/party list system. First, single member districts are to be drawn to geographic compactness. Second, each party will have a list of members it wants to elect from each district. Third, the number of members a party elects will be determined proportionally by the statewide popular vote. Fourth, the party member for each district will be picked by all the voters of that district.

For instance, Joe Blow goes to the voting Booth. His ballot looks as so:
Libertarian Party Allan Smith
Green Party Suzanne Polis
Democratic Party Bill Cunningham
Republican Party Joe Gonzalez
Party Vote Libertarian

The state has 24 districts for the legislature in question (State House, State Senate, or Congress) and the party vote is 46% R, 43% D, 5% L, 4% G. The party seats are proportionally distributed:
11 R's
11 D's
1 L
1 G

The 11 most Republican districts are allocated the Republican members they selected. The 11 most Democratic districts of those remaining are allocated to the Democratic members they selected. The remaining two districts are allocated a Libertarian and Green.

This has a number of advantages:

Separates Members from Parties

The point of having a representative of a local area is to represent the residents of that area, not a party. Under this system, the representatives are elected from all the people of that district, regardless of party, and are thus answerable to them all. Hence it preserves and improves the geographic representation principle.

You Get More Moderate Members, rather than more Extreme Members

Currently, all members must fear being "primaried" if they deviate from their base. The result is extreme party polarization. Under my system, the political base for each member is the full constituency. As a result, the majority is not held hostage by a small minority.

Increases Third Party Representation

As seen from the example, proportional representative raises the chance of a third party getting into government. You will get a few Libertarians or Greens who actually are forced into the business of governing and representing districts. This will be good for third parties.

Eliminates the Need for Primaries

Only one election is now needed. The voter will select the party member of each party they want to represent them, as well as the party they want to elect. This saves time and money.

Eliminates the Party Registration Problem

Each voter gets a voice on each party's member for that district, so voters will not be stymied by having registered for the wrong party. Since partisan decisions are made on a party-only basis, there is no incentive for partisans of party A to vote for the worst candidate from party B, as it will not mean that party B is unelectable- it will only potentially saddle them with a worse member

Eliminates Gerrymandering Problems

It solves the main point of this scheme: The parties will elect members on the basis of their statewide total popular vote, so there is no incentive for gerrymandering. There is no incentive to deviate from geographically compact districts. Redrawing districts has no partisan significance.

---

In sum, this system is better than the current system for the above reasons. It should be used to replace any legislature elected by single member districts.

[UncleSam]

Ya, not happening. You pick candidates not parties in this country, and I for one would abhor any system giving even more power to the state/national parties at the expense of individuals looking to run for office.

I agree with compactness though. The notion that redistricting isn't handled by a computer working with a known formula nationally always confused me.

[muon2]

Ya, not happening. You pick candidates not parties in this country, and I for one would abhor any system giving even more power to the state/national parties at the expense of individuals looking to run for office.

I agree with compactness though. The notion that redistricting isn't handled by a computer working with a known formula nationally always confused me.

The problem of redistricting is one of a class of computations known to have no direct solution for a large number of elements (eg census blocks) in a reasonable time (that is not exponentially long). Any algorithm could at best get close to what the formula is supposed to achieve, but in practice someone would probably challenge the computer output with one they said did better at the map. However, a computer could easily judge among competing plans and picked the one that best met neutral criteria. That is possible given this type of computing problem.

Of course gerrymandering is handled by a computer that has an algorithm to optimize results for a party, they just can't guarantee the absolute safest map for the party given the computational limits I described.

[Tintrlvr]

What are the good aspects of the current system that we want to preserve again?