An amendment to institute proportional voting in the House of Representatives...

[originalpckelly]

for the end of preventing gerrymandering and promoting concerned representation in the House for all American citizens.

Section 1: District structure

The various States shall retain the right of defining a boundary of a congressional district as they choose, but the boundary of a district shall be approved by the citizens of that district not more than one year after its alteration and the district shall contain no more than 500,000 citizens of the United States.


Section 2: Weighting of district vote in the House of Representatives

Votes in the House of Representatives shall be conducted with a tally reflecting the population of a district.


Section 3: Qualifications of a candidate to stand for election

A person who shall not have attained the age of 21, have been a resident of their district and a United States citizen for seven years, and petitioned 10,000 other citizens for their position on a district ballot may not participate in an election for their respective district.


Section 4: Proportional voting and concerned representation

All candidates in an election who shall have received no less than 10,000 votes of citizens in their respective district shall Represent those citizens who voted for them in the House of Representatives. Their vote in the House will be the number of individuals who cast a vote for them.


Section 5: Classing, terms, term limits, and vacancy

1/2 of the congressional districts in the House of Representatives shall have elections each year.

Each Representatives may serve no more than five 2 year terms.

In the case where death or severe mental or other impairment shall not be the cause of vacancy, the current Representative may select another citizen meeting the full qualifications to serve the remainder of a term. If death or severe mental or other impairment shall be the cause of vacancy, the mayor of the largest city in the congressional district may select another citizen to serve the remainder of the term.

[Rusty MacHenry]

1. Is this a actual bill

Or something you came up with? cause if you came up with this your the one that should be in office.

[originalpckelly]

3. Actually, I've been thinking about it for months and I wrote it.

I know the numbers of Representatives would be prohibitively large if each district was made of like 10,000 people (there would be 30,000 congressional districts.)

I don't really think that's too probable, however, as our system is a very two party system. We might see the rise of more parties/factions, but I figure diversity of opinion is just about what we need at this time in our history. Primaries for congressional districts would be rendered obsolete, because anyone who can get 10,000 people to agree with them can go to Congress. (I must note I also envision a network of computers that would be separate from the internet and secure, in which deliberations would be conducted, should there ever be a 30,000 member Congress.)

[hang a left]

16. Now, ON to the Senate.

Love your ideas!

[originalpckelly]

19. Thanks...

I'm getting tired, think I'll knock off for tonight. Nighty-nite all! :hi: :boring:

[northzax]

2. you understand that you could conceivably have a House

of 30,000 people? where are they going to meet, RFK?

[originalpckelly]

6. I've thought of that contingency.

In that case, the reps could meet in a centrally located part of the district and hold congress that way, they could cast their votes over a secure electronic network that is completely separate from the internet. It would be a sort of local-federalism, where federal policy is made in the community not in some far off city.

[northzax]

12. i guess

but then the way compromise happens is by people off the floor talking and dealing, your method makes that basically impossible. how would you have committees? would all meetings be by videoconference? hard to make, say, the Attorney General testify by videoconference, no? how would you handle committee assignments?

some other things to think of: would these be full time positions, like now? (you can't really govern the US without full time legislators, there is way too much going on) would they all have staffs? say each legislator got two staff people (one for domestic affairs, one for international ones) none of them would ever know enough about what was going on to be able to make rational decisions (I know it sounds a cliche, but the House votes on stuff, especially in committee, all the freaking time, you need someone to read the bills, someone to help you draft them, someone to fact check, hell, someone to answer the phones) you can't really be a congressperson with fewer then ten staffmembers, simply to help you keep track of what is going on. who's going to pay for the 60-300l,000 staffers we are talking about? let alone the committee staff, the leadership's staff...

the US is simply too large for this sort of representation.

[hang a left]

17. Accepted...

Maybe we could tweak the idea to actually work. I love the redistricting part.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. I'm not sure what this is supposed to do

are you saying some representatives could have a vote worth, say 1.1435 that of another representative?

What problem are you trying to solve?

And other nits:

One doesn't "stand for election" in the US. It's a british expression.

I can petition 10,000 people by running an ad in a newspaper, asking for their support. Do you mean they must have 10k signatures?

Are you saying representatives who live in districts with a higher voter turnout get a bigger vote in the House?

Overall, the whole idea seems way too complicated and pointless. Each rep should have one vote. If you want to address gerrymandering, offer an amendment that all districts must be compact and contiguous to the greatest extent possible.

[originalpckelly]

5. Oh my, where do I start?

"I'm not sure what this is supposed to do are you saying some representatives could have a vote worth, say 1.1435 that of another representative?"

No, this is a population based system. In other words the number of people who vote for a representative in an election determines the votes a representative has to cast in the House.

If for example 300,000 people vote for a candidate in an election, the candidate will be able to cast 300,000 votes in the House. It is literally a "representative democracy".

"What problem are you trying to solve?"

A large number of inequities in our current system have been on my mind in recent months, this is the product of hours of thinking throughout that time, however, because it is the first time I have shared this idea with other people I may have to think about a particular inquiry for a while before answering it.

In particular:
1. gerrymandering

2. winner-takes-all-system

3. lack of diversity in political discourse

4. lack of response to popular will

5. the odd arrangements that must be made in order to have an election to fill a Representatives seat

"And other nits:

One doesn't "stand for election" in the US. It's a british expression."

I am an American, and I also use the phrase, and you can get over it! :P

"I can petition 10,000 people by running an ad in a newspaper, asking for their support. Do you mean they must have 10k signatures?"

The various States may regulate the method of registering support, it may include signatures on a written petition, or other methods of registering support.

"Are you saying representatives who live in districts with a higher voter turnout get a bigger vote in the House?"

Yes, and not only that, but in general a Representatives' vote in Congress is determined by how many votes are cast in approval of the Representative.

People who don't vote won't get Representation, which is quite frankly what happens in reality.

"Overall, the whole idea seems way too complicated and pointless. Each rep should have one vote. If you want to address gerrymandering, offer an amendment that all districts must be compact and contiguous to the greatest extent possible."

I agree, it is complicated to some degree, but I think if you sit and think about it for a little while it will show itself to be a fairer system than the current one. I very much disagree with the "every rep should have one vote" part, because what it says it that some people are more important than others simply because of their location or their political preference. And when you say an amendment should be offered that states a district must be "compact and contiguous to the greatest extent possible" I think you will find that people can change the definitions of those words to suit the moment and what they feel to acceptable. Those are qualitative descriptions, not quantitative ones. The law should always be specific so that people can easily understand it. My wording might be off because I'm not the greatest writer, but in general the provisions are very specific and outline processes that are hard to circumvent.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. All of this would have about 1% of the effect

of doing away with the electoral inequality of the US Senate. The House is about as fair a system as we're ever gonna get. The Senate, though, is entirely unfair, and as a result, the Electoral College is also totally inequitable.

[originalpckelly]

14. The US Senate is not supposed to be a body of popular will.

It is supposed to be a deliberative body that checks the mob.

However, the House is not popular enough, in fact in recent years it is more unified and less popular than the Senate, which is the exact opposite of the founders' intent.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Please explain

how the House is less popular than the senate. I presume you don't mean "popular" in the high-school sense of well-liked, but perhaps something along the lines of "representative"?

How is the House more unified? It's been very closely split for years.

[originalpckelly]

18. That's what I mean, there is very intense party discipline in the House...

elections in many districts are no longer competitive as well, because of gerrymandering. It is still possible for the House to change hands, but it is a very difficult process. We had fewer seats gains last election, even though the generic ballot was even more split than it was in '94. That suggests there is something wrong with the system, and gerrymandering is the culprit. Now it's not just gerrymandering, but the winner-takes-all system that enables it. Hence the amendment addresses the winner-takes-all system.

While the House may have more elections than the Senate, it is becoming far less reactive to the people's will.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I see...

I disagree with your premise, then. I don't think the House is less responsive to the public passions than the Senate. Not even close, imo.

Now as to solving the problem you talk about: the problem, as you describe it, is that there isn't enough turnover in the House, and you want to implement a system that will ensure greater turnover.

I ask this: is it a legitimate constitutional issue to try to enforce greater turnover? Your complaint is that people tend to vote for incumbents. I don't disagree with that as a fact, but I disagree that it's a problem requiring a constitutional remedy. We are, in fact, given the opportunity every two years to throw the bums out. That we don't do so is OUR problem, and I don't want to change the constitution to require us to do so. It reminds me of the 22nd Amendment, which I think was very misguided. If we want to elect a President for 3, 4 or more terms, I don't think we should be prohibited from doing so.

[originalpckelly]

22. Well, of course. I mean, why do we even hold elections every two years?

:shrug:

[WorldResident]

7. Because having party leaders able to threaten members out of the House is exactly what we need

You, sir, will be our 219th candidate on our ballot, if you vote against this bill.

[originalpckelly]

8. Whah?

:shrug:

How does this system even do that?

[WorldResident]

24. This has happened in a lot of "proportional system" governments

n/t

[originalpckelly]

25. This is a different type of proportional representation...

no party bosses pick people, because unlike a proportional system it's not a general ballot with people chosen to represent it.

This is actually a system that would probably forward the most diverse and independent House in American history. It's proportional system in that the power of a representative lies in the number of people who vote for them. Their actual vote in the House is reflective of that number.

That's why it's a proportional system, but doesn't have the problem you talked about.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Doesn't the Constitution preclude the federal government how to each state....

... is to select its representatives?

And on the off chance that it doesn't: think about it people - do you really WANT the federal government to have the authority to tell the states how to elect its representatives?

Just to drive the point home: Do you REALLY want CONGRESS determining how CONGRESS is to be elected?

Oh yah - this thread is about gerrymandering.

Full circle.

:rofl: DUers slay me.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Ah - you did say "amendment" - someone I proccessed it as "Act". The rest holds tho.

[originalpckelly]

11. Actually, since the process of amendment involves approval in some way...

by a body/group other than the Congress itself, I would suggest that probably eliminates or reduces any conflicts of interest.

[arcos]

21. You should look at how it works in other countries...

From what I know, no country has members of Congress with fractions of votes according to each district's population, and I really don't see how that could work.

But take a look at Germany, for example...


Political System

Germany elects on federal level a legislature. The parliament has two chambers. The Federal Diet (Bundestag) nominally has 598 members, elected for a four year term, 299 members elected in single-seat constituencies according to first-past-the-post, while a further 299 members are allocated from statewide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution in the legislature, conducted according to a system of proportional representation called the additional member system. Voters vote once for a constituency representative, and a second time for a party, and the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes. In the current parliament there are 16 overhang seats, giving a total of 614. This is caused by larger parties winning additional single-member districts above the totals determined by their proportional party vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Germany

[originalpckelly]

23. It's not fractional, I originally thought of that, but it would be odd.

The weird tallies that could be had.

But this is actually quite novel. We say we are a representative democracy, well then, let's keep that word and show how many people a given Representative is speaking/voting for.

Yes, I understand the numbers could be quite large, but there really is nothing too difficult about them, they can be added by even the simplest of calculators.