Simple solution to end gerrymandering

[yurbud]

Make all seats at large. Voters would choose a party, and then rank candidates within the party, so if the GOP wins 25 seats, their top 25 vote getters go to congress.

This would make it more likely that third parties would get in if they got enough votes to equal at least one seat.

Candidates could still campaign in their traditional districts because they would know what issues are important to voters there.

There is probably a problem with this proposal I'm not seeing, but it would make it easier to get rid of the deadwood without risking giving up the seat to the GOP; simply rank the lackluster candidate lower (or not at all) and he'll get bumped by the other party or a newcomer could get more votes and move up.

If it looks like Arnold is anywhere near getting traction on his Texafication of our districts, this could be a way to neutralize him.

[Warpy]

1. Well, the problem would be that minorities

would be effectively disenfranchised, with no predominantly black or Hispanic or Indian areas. Jerrymandering sucks, but with even moderate honesty in drawing districts, minorities get a chance in the districts where they hold a majority.

It sucks that people vote race, but that's the way it is in a large part of this country, and I'm not talking about the south, exclusively. If anything, the urban northeast is as rigidly racist as the south, even if it's expressed differently.

Perhaps if we ever grow up and realize the only race is the human race, and that the only nationality for those of us born in the US is American we can try the at large idea. For now, no.

[Jonathan_Hoag]

4. How would they be disenfrechised?

One man - one vote.

I see no reason why distrits should be gerrymandered to artificially make racially homogenous districts. That does not mean that no black or hispanic candidate could be elected but it would mean that more moderate cadidates would have a better chance. And that would apply equally to a Democrat black Rangel or McKinney type and white Republican types like Delay.
It would also make House races much more competitive. Georgia distrct 4 is solidly Democrat as much as district 7 is solidly Republican. The other party has no chance and the primaries are the de-facto general elections. In district 13 (my district) David Scott ran unoposed in the general election and with only token resistance in the primaries.

[Warpy]

7. They would be outnumbered

and wouldn't be able to elect someone to represent THEIR interests.

Sorry, but no white guy can adequately represent the black community.

It just can't be done.

They need direct representation, not at large candidates. It's the only way their problems can be aired and dealt with.

The same goes for rural people. Without rural districts, they'd be stuck with urbanites "represtenting" them. My guess is that they wouldn't be represented very well.

I know you think your idea is the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, there's a reason it isn't done like that in the US. Districts are meant to represent the people in them, and are the only way any minority gets a voice in the government, whether it's a racial or a rural minority.

[Jonathan_Hoag]

13. They would have the same vote as anyone else?

Are whiote people in DeKalb county disenfrechised? Or in the City of Atlanta?

Your sentence about "no white guy can adequately represent the black community" smacks of racism. First, the notion that "black community" is some sort of separate entity that only a black man can represent is very separatist and balkanizing. Teh corrolary of course is that only a white guy can adequately represent the white community but then I do not see how Barak Obama got elected in a statewide election.

The at-large seats would not mean that no minority or rural candidates would be elected. But it would mean that there would be a moderating effect of different areas on one another. So you would be unlikely to get a black race-baiter in but also unliely to get a white Bible-thumper as well. In effect, the House would work much better.

And by the way, this was not my idea. I just think it was a pretty neat idea and that it would fix the gerrymandering perversion going on. As I said, my district is uncontested and designed that that way because it has no geographic integrity but looks like a spider (with thin legs going in every direction) all over the metro area.

[yurbud]

11. a lot of democrats would vote for Maxine Waters ahead of GOP-lite dems

[Jonathan_Hoag]

2. That looks a lot of like the parliamentary system in much of Europe

like France or Germany.
Where you vote for the party and people get there from the party list. In Germany half of the Bundestag (Lower - but much more important - House of the Parliament) is elected from the list and half trough direct mandates liek the US/UK system. I do not know of a system like that where you can express preference of the people on the list on a national or state level, however.

Closest it gets for local elections (i.e. city and county (rough equivalents) councils) in Germany where you have like 100 votes and you can distribute these votes among different lists belonging to different parties and voter alliances and you can even give up to 3 votes to single candidates. To avoid confusing the Florida-type voters there is also an option to select the list only and automatically give 100 votes to the 100 first names on that list.

[Warpy]

3. I really hate to bring this up

but Germany is more homogeneous than the US.

Sure, they've got a few generations of Turkish and Arab guest workers there, but honestly, there is simply no comparison.

[Jonathan_Hoag]

5. Homogenity has nothing to do with it

Again, the gerrymandering to give minorities an artificial majority is a bad policy as it favors fringes rather than mainstream.

The reason France and Germany have proportional system is that their current constitution is pretty late - from a time when political parties were firmly established. Also modern communications/travel was commonplace by then and indivudal districts were much less isolated.
When UK developed parliamentarism there were no parties and distrits were very much for themselves, it taking a days journey to travel from one to another. That was still partially true when US adopted
their constitution.

[Warpy]

6. Minorities are fringe people?

that's news to a lot of them, I'm sure.

Once again, the US is not the UK. The US is not Germany. We are completely different, with completely different problems.

[Jonathan_Hoag]

8. Can you read properly?

"Fringe" did not refer to minority groups but to candidates often elected by homogenous districts, regardless of racial makeup. And that applies equally to people elected from Harlem as it does to people elected from corn country, Kansas. It is not always the case, not even most of the time, but among the 437 Reps there are way too many nutjobs on both sides of the aisle.

US might be different than UK or Germany but it is still built on the principle of individualism, not groupthink. And gerrymandering to bolster some sort of group identity is just that.

[yurbud]

18. my idea still allows for candidates to focus on narrower constituencies.

[ashmanonar]

9. i think if we got rid of the fools in power

we wouldn't have to worry about gerrymandering, would we? hows about a recall on the gropinator?

[yurbud]

10. can't put all our eggs in one basket.

If you hold your breath until Arnold is gone, you'll turn blue and die.

[ashmanonar]

12. well, i'm just saying.

if we start the ball rolling, maybe gravity will do it's job!

we can't count on it, but it's a start, yah?

[yurbud]

14. follow GOP model--roll lots of balls, so other side can't stop all

[ashmanonar]

15. yep!

that oughta work, if we can get the balls rolling in the first place.

[yurbud]

16. get congressmen and senators to grow balls, then roll

[ashmanonar]

17. if we can get them going.

that's the key.