Should different types of electoral methods be allowed?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The Constitution does not say how the House is to be elected, and states can theoretically use any method. However some sort of voting reform law passed in the 60s or 70s requires all states use the single member district system used now.

If this law were to be repealed, states could use any such system they want. One proposed system is how many states elect their State Houses: a district has more than one representative. A group of Democrats and Republicans all run for the seat, people may vote for as many as there are representatives from the seat, and the top vote getters win. This could be a good alternative for electing minorities to racial gerrymandering in the south.

Should this requirement be repealed?

[No more McShame]

The Constitution does not say how the House is to be elected, and states can theoretically use any method. However some sort of voting reform law passed in the 60s or 70s requires all states use the single member district system used now.

If this law were to be repealed, states could use any such system they want. One proposed system is how many states elect their State Houses: a district has more than one representative. A group of Democrats and Republicans all run for the seat, people may vote for as many as there are representatives from the seat, and the top vote getters win. This could be a good alternative for electing minorities to racial gerrymandering in the south.

Should this requirement be repealed?

Election law is traditionally state territory and I don't see where that should be changed.  I doubt your proposal will help the Democrats in the South.  It seems to me that there would be straight Republican tickets being elected in those solid Republican states.

[Emsworth]

The Constitution does not say how the House is to be elected, and states can theoretically use any method. However some sort of voting reform law passed in the 60s or 70s requires all states use the single member district system used now.

If this law were to be repealed, states could use any such system they want. One proposed system is how many states elect their State Houses: a district has more than one representative. A group of Democrats and Republicans all run for the seat, people may vote for as many as there are representatives from the seat, and the top vote getters win. This could be a good alternative for electing minorities to racial gerrymandering in the south.

Should this requirement be repealed?

Election law is traditionally state territory and I don't see where that should be changed.  I doubt your proposal will help the Democrats in the South.  It seems to me that there would be straight Republican tickets being elected in those solid Republican states.

Quite so; the system, known as FPTP block voting, tends to create very large majorities for one party. It would essentially be like the Electoral College's winner-take-all system.

However, Republican gains in the South and in the "Heartland" would be counterbalanced by Democratic gains on the Pacific Coast and in the Northeast.

[No more McShame]

Yes, that would be the flip side of that.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

actually the idea isn't to have each state vote as a block (imagine how much of a mess California would be), but rather draw districts and have a set amount of reps from that district.

[zorkpolitics]

As a Federal Republic we should allow states to decide how representatives are elected.  I'd like to see CA adopt proportional voting so any party (like the Greens or Libertarians) that got 2% or more state wide would get a representative.  This could provide a some really wacko congressman to balance the nearly blind partisanship of the Democrats and the Republicans.

[Jake]

I'd like to see either a MMP system like Germany uses or STV like Ireland uses.  Both add an elemant to proportionality to the system, but retain local representation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Before the courts involved themselves in redistricing issues, the law was such that if a State couldn't agree on how to redistrict, but got extra seats, the extra seats would be elected on an at-large basis.  Technically that law is still on the books, but I can't see the courts leaving their hands off the redistricting process so that it would come into effect.

[jimrtex]

Before the courts involved themselves in redistricing issues, the law was such that if a State couldn't agree on how to redistrict, but got extra seats, the extra seats would be elected on an at-large basis.  Technically that law is still on the books, but I can't see the courts leaving their hands off the redistricting process so that it would come into effect.

I interpret 2 USC 1 § 2a as putting an affirmative obligation on a state to redistrict.  Subsection (c) makes provision for what happens until a state redistricts, not what happens if a state "couldn't agree".  There could be certain cases where a state did not have an opportunity to redistrict.  For example, in Texas the state legislature only meets in the spring of odd years.  If the census figures were not available, Texas might be able to put off redistricting, and elect any new ones at large.  Maine does not redistrict until the +4 election, and uses its existing districts for the +2 election in accord with subsection (c)(2).

Given that it specifies the 82nd Congress, I assume that the particular section was either added before the 1950 census (or simply recodified existing law).

What would likely happen when a state failed to redistrict, is that the current districts would be found to violate the equal protection clause.  For example, in 2001 in Texas, the existing 30 districts would have been unbalanced, making the election of 2 additional representatives at large moot.

And clearly § 2a does not permit a state to redistrict its existing number of districts and then add at large seats.

[jimrtex]

The Constitution does not say how the House is to be elected, and states can theoretically use any method. However some sort of voting reform law passed in the 60s or 70s requires all states use the single member district system used now.

There has been a districting requirement since the 19th century, and it was anticipated at the time of the Constitution that representatives would be elected from districts, perhaps even from districts defined by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the time, place, and manner of congressional elections.  The districting provision is one such "manner", as the November general election date is such a "time".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very few state representatives are elected from multi-member districts, and the courts have generally considered them discriminatory.  I doubt that many states would adopt a multi-seat plan voluntarily.  In areas where one party dominates, it would mean that some of the representatives would lose their job, and their would be reduced career advancement opportunities for state legislators.

What Congress should do is make consideration of race or ethnicity in the definition of congressional districts illegal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually it is 2 USC 2c passed in 1967 (after the one man onevote ruling)  that establishes a requirement for single-member districts. Before then it was not unheard of for a State to simply be unable to agree on a redistricting plan because the two houses of the state legislature were unable to come to agreement on how to do it.  IIRC, one State went over a decade with an extra at-large district because it couldn't come up with a redistricting plan.  Also, there have been States that have used multi-member Congressional districts, tho I think the last such plan that was used was in the 19th century.  Single member districts have been the norm, but they certainly aren't required by the constitution.