Should the House of Representatives Be Elected by Proportional Representation?

[Oak Hills]

Yes, absolutely.

[DC Al Fine]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

[Franzl]

Yes, senators provide sufficient personal representation (even if that wasn't their original purpose).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, it should be elected via Trial by Ordeal.

[Oak Hills]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

Yeah, I would be very happy with this.

Over time, I have come up with many election reform plans, and one of them goes like this:
1.Voters are given two elections to vote in, as in the German system, with a number of districts equal to half the normal size of the legislative body forming the first vote, and national parties forming the second vote, except the first vote would be by approval voting.
2.The candidate with the highest approval in each district is elected to represent that district.
3.Each party makes a list of all of its losing candidates, ranked by how high their approvals were in their districts.
4.The non-district seats are filled based on those lists.
Is this too complicated? Has it been tried anywhere? Does anyone here think it would be a good idea?

[H. Ross Peron]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

[Indy Texas]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

Yeah, I would be very happy with this.

Over time, I have come up with many election reform plans, and one of them goes like this:
1.Voters are given two elections to vote in, as in the German system, with a number of districts equal to half the normal size of the legislative body forming the first vote, and national parties forming the second vote, except the first vote would be by approval voting.
2.The candidate with the highest approval in each district is elected to represent that district.
3.Each party makes a list of all of its losing candidates, ranked by how high their approvals were in their districts.
4.The non-district seats are filled based on those lists.
Is this too complicated? Has it been tried anywhere? Does anyone here think it would be a good idea?

I would be fine with this.

In a perfect world, the district seats would go to the workhorses who actually care about their districts and getting things done and the non-district seats could go to the rootless "grassroots" types who are beholden to national activist groups and don't want to do anything except pontificate and be ideological cheerleaders.

[Franknburger]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

Yeah, I would be very happy with this.

Over time, I have come up with many election reform plans, and one of them goes like this:
1.Voters are given two elections to vote in, as in the German system, with a number of districts equal to half the normal size of the legislative body forming the first vote, and national parties forming the second vote, except the first vote would be by approval voting.
2.The candidate with the highest approval in each district is elected to represent that district.
3.Each party makes a list of all of its losing candidates, ranked by how high their approvals were in their districts.
4.The non-district seats are filled based on those lists.
Is this too complicated? Has it been tried anywhere? Does anyone here think it would be a good idea?

Since you have been referring to the German model, here two additions, as they are being done in Germany:

a. The non-district (constituency) seats are not distributed nationally, but state-wise (in the case of the US, it could make sense to form state groups for that purpose, especially New England and Rockies / Northern Great Plains). As such, also the proportionally distributed seats are guaranteeing a reasonable level of regional rooting and representation.

b. The  distribution of proportional seats among the states (state groups) isn't pre-defined, but depends on actual voter turnout. As such, a state's failure to encourage voting may result in losing some representation on federal level.

More detailed description on the German distribution system in use since 2013:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166528.msg3862003#msg3862003

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

[Sol]

The Senate should be elected by PR, not the House.

[⛄]

Partially. I think it's still important for a portion to be elected by FPTP to allow for local issues to be heard, and to give some MP's a measure of independence. That said the end result should still be proportional. I support something like the German model with a lower threshold like 1-2%.

Yeah, I would be very happy with this.

Over time, I have come up with many election reform plans, and one of them goes like this:
1.Voters are given two elections to vote in, as in the German system, with a number of districts equal to half the normal size of the legislative body forming the first vote, and national parties forming the second vote, except the first vote would be by approval voting.
2.The candidate with the highest approval in each district is elected to represent that district.
3.Each party makes a list of all of its losing candidates, ranked by how high their approvals were in their districts.
4.The non-district seats are filled based on those lists.
Is this too complicated? Has it been tried anywhere? Does anyone here think it would be a good idea?

Yes, in Baden-Wurtenberg.

[Napoleon]

They should be elected by the state legislatures.

[Del Tachi]

Keep the current 435 House seats elected by FPTP, but slap on another 20 to 40 Senate seats and elect them through a national PR system using a party-list.

[Frodo]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

If it can work in Germany, it can work here.  Last I checked, Germany still has a federal system even with MMP. 

[Hatman 🍁]

The Senate should be elected by PR, not the House.

^^^^^^^


And the House should be elected using AV with districts drawn up using non partisan commissions under federal regulations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

If it can work in Germany, it can work here.  Last I checked, Germany still has a federal system even with MMP. 

Germany has only 16 states and the ratio in population between the largest and smallest is 27:1, the United States has 50 states and a ratio of 66:1.  Germany can have a functional MMP system with at least 3 members per state with a legislature of a little over 300 members.  The US would require about 1350 to do the same.  A 300 member legislature can be functional, a 1350 member legislature cannot.

[Sol]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

If it can work in Germany, it can work here.  Last I checked, Germany still has a federal system even with MMP. 

Germany has only 16 states and the ratio in population between the largest and smallest is 27:1, the United States has 50 states and a ratio of 66:1.  Germany can have a functional MMP system with at least 3 members per state with a legislature of a little over 300 members.  The US would require about 1350 to do the same.  A 300 member legislature can be functional, a 1350 member legislature cannot.

I think the solution to that is to merge some states then. There's no reason for Delaware to exist as a state which isn't part of Pennsylvania.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

If it can work in Germany, it can work here.  Last I checked, Germany still has a federal system even with MMP. 

Germany has only 16 states and the ratio in population between the largest and smallest is 27:1, the United States has 50 states and a ratio of 66:1.  Germany can have a functional MMP system with at least 3 members per state with a legislature of a little over 300 members.  The US would require about 1350 to do the same.  A 300 member legislature can be functional, a 1350 member legislature cannot.

I think the solution to that is to merge some states then. There's no reason for Delaware to exist as a state which isn't part of Pennsylvania.

And how do you propose to do that without trampling on the remaining shreds of state sovereignty?  (BTW, Delaware was part of colonial Pennsylvania with a separate assembly but the same governor.)

[Sol]

No.  Given the number of states we have and the way population is distributed among them, there's absolutely no way of realistically going to proportional representation without either eliminating the allocation of Representatives to States and thus weakening the Federal system or going to an unwieldy House with more than triple its current size.

If it can work in Germany, it can work here.  Last I checked, Germany still has a federal system even with MMP. 

Germany has only 16 states and the ratio in population between the largest and smallest is 27:1, the United States has 50 states and a ratio of 66:1.  Germany can have a functional MMP system with at least 3 members per state with a legislature of a little over 300 members.  The US would require about 1350 to do the same.  A 300 member legislature can be functional, a 1350 member legislature cannot.

I think the solution to that is to merge some states then. There's no reason for Delaware to exist as a state which isn't part of Pennsylvania.

And how do you propose to do that without trampling on the remaining shreds of state sovereignty?  (BTW, Delaware was part of colonial Pennsylvania with a separate assembly but the same governor.)

TBH, I don't believe in federalism anyway. But if I were in charge, and I had to do it with federalism, I'd pass a constitutional amendment requiring that states be based on metro boundaries.

[Hatman 🍁]

I support federalism, but the Senate should be elected with nation wide Senators. Keep it at 100, so whatever % of the vote a party gets is how many seats you get. Or alternatively, keep the 3 classes of senators, but still have a nationwide race every 2 years that elects 33 or 34 senators.

[politicallefty]

If we're going to adopt proportional representation (preferably MMP), I think there should be a more fundamental transformation of the House of Representatives. It should be apportioned among the entire country without regard to state borders. We could elect an additional membership on top of that that reflects the nation as a whole.

As long as we have the Senate to represent the states, I see no reason for the House to represent anything other than the true will of the American people.

[Redalgo]

I am open to a lot of possibilities on electoral reform, though in general I strongly support proportional representation and think it should be implemented for Congress in some way.

[Peter the Lefty]

Yes, through a MMP system.  And enlarge it substantially.  Abolish the Senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, through a MMP system.  And enlarge it substantially.  Abolish the Senate.

So basically eliminate all pretense at having a Federal system of governance?

[Sol]

Yes, through a MMP system.  And enlarge it substantially.  Abolish the Senate.

So basically eliminate all pretense at having a Federal system of governance?

Theoretically, why would that necessarily be the case?