The shape of some Congressional districts seems ridiculous, and people have been talking for a long time about how to solve this.
What if we took geography out of the equation?
Rather than voting for a Congressman who will represent the people who live in a certain area, why not pick Congressmen who will represent a political position?
Here’s how it would work. Anyone can write a party platform. If they get more than some threshold number of people to sign on, they get on the ballot. People then vote for a party — i.e., for an idea.
The party would disclose the people they would appoint to office if they win. For example, if you were some small party, you might only have a chance of getting five people in office, but you might only get one. So you’d list the people you would appoint, in order.
The assumption would be that policy is more important than geography, although people could start parties that represent geographical concerns. One side benefit of this concept is that it would severely curtail the power of the two-party system.
This would not a parliamentary system, because the people would still vote for Senators and for the President. (Although I would also like to go back to having states appoint Senators, but that’s a different issue.)
It’s a rough idea, and would need some work, but what do you think of the general concept?
At first glance, interesting. But given our current polarization and tendencies for the extremes to have outsized influence, how would your solution rein that in? And would you still draw lines within individual states, or maybe this leads to congressional districts that cross state lines if the residents are of the same mindset.
Good question. It seems to me there are two kinds of polarization going on.
The first is that we divide the country along party lines, so that 45 percent of the people in one district essentially get no representation, because it was drawn to ensure a majority for the other side.
The second is ideological. People live in very different worlds. (E.g., consider Qanon followers, or Antifa.)
My proposal would solve the first, because the 45 percent could select which group to associate with. But it would also give voice to all the wacky extremes.
Would that cause more polarization? Possibly, although you have to consider the possibility that it’s precisely because they feel they have no voice that some of these crazy movements gain steam.
QUOTE: My proposal would solve the first, because the 45 percent could select which group to associate with. But it would also give voice to all the wacky extremes.
Isn’t that element the same as the current system? Albeit it’s not probable….everyone has the opportunity to select which party to associate with and switch “if” their party is not in power. It’s their conviction for certain ideas that keeps them associated to a particular party currently. Given that, in the new system, wouldn’t that dynamic still be the same? So, even though they could switch, wouldn’t most likely remain with their initial “ideals”?
Consider my case. I live in a very blue state, in a very blue district. My vote essentially means nothing. If I could vote for a national party, and that party won 45 percent of the vote, then my vote would be meaningful.
I’d agree that the two-party system is problematic and could use a significant overhaul. Yet, I’m still having difficulty understanding the practical impact of your suggested adjustment.
Let’s say 3 candidates reached the threshold number to get on the ballot and they each ended-up with 33% of the vote or something that didn’t have a very clear majority. How would decision-making be conducted in Congress…especially if the “ideas” are conflicting in nature? Would the candidates be allowed to solicit more support for their idea to get a greater majority? Given people are typically wedded to their ideas, it might be difficult for the candidates to get greater support. So, if they are not successful in getting a significant majority, what happens then? Do we end up in gridlock as we are currently? But, let’s think positive and say a candidate is successful in getting a significant majority (e.g., 60%, 25% and 20%), what happens to the ideas of the 25% and 20% populations? Will they not get represented because they didn’t earn enough support?
I’m not saying your thoughts aren’t good nor that I disagree. I’m attempting to understand how it better solves some of our current issues.
I’m not positive I understand your question, but let me clarify one point. In my system, candidates wouldn’t actually run. A party would run.
So, for example, let’s say there was a Pigweed and Crowhill party. You would vote for the party. If the party got enough votes to put one person in office, we’d put in Pigweed. If the party got enough votes to put two people in office, we’d put in Crowhill. If the party got enough to put three people in office, we’d put in Captain Crowhill. Etc.
In a certain way, people would think of this as voting for Pigweed, but they’d actually be voting for the party.
In terms of how this would work in Congress, there would probably be two or three very large parties, and lots of little parties, and coalitions would have to be formed to get bills passed.
The basic idea is to create a means to end the two-party system and some of the distortions that come from it, such as gerrymandering.