A proposal to drastically change the Legislature of the USA.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Ok, so I thought this up just a while ago and wanted to hear your opinions on it.
Senate changes: All members moved to House. The senate is to be filled via proportional representation in presidential elections, where 1% gets one seat. Remaining seats go to the highest remainder. (EX: Last election would be 48D, 46R, 4L, 2G). Seats are filled by party list.
House changes: Expanded to 535. All districts are abolished, all candidates are from a single state-wide district. Candidates must reach a certain percent for instant election, remaining seats are done with STV. The threshold is determined by this equation: #of seats/100. (Ex: Vermont with 3 seats, 1 Independent and 1 Democrat reach the 33.3% threshold. Lowest person is eliminated and their votes distributed until another candidate reaches the threshold or there is only one candidate remaining.) I think this system would eliminate most gerrymandering issues we have in the country, and third parties would be viable in congressional elections. However, such a plan would drastically change the legislature. What do you guys think?

All current Senators and Reps would still represent their home state. Party lists would have to be made before the plan is put into motion.
I'm not sure whether or not to have a minimum of 3 seats or change the #of representatives after the next census, either.

[Dr. MB]

It's fine (the House part) but ONLY if the lists are decided in an open primary (for example first place candidate gets 1st-pick, 2nd place gets 2nd and so on), and not if the lists are decided by the party central committee. Senate should stay as it is.

I think the house should be elected by 5-member districts, in a blanket primary.

[Blue3]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 1000, and eliminate the Senate.

[Lechasseur]

Approve, I've come to support proportional representation, I think it's the one way we could possibly fix our broken political system.

I'd also add that I no longer support presidentialism, I think the office of president should become a ceremonial one and we should switch to a parliamentary system with a prime minister and cabinet that report to Congress.

I think this would represent normal people much better because with our first past the post presidential system we just have two parties beholden to their donors and do not represent normal people. I'm personnally tired of supporting the lesser of two evils.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I prefer IRV to PR.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Approve, I've come to support proportional representation, I think it's the one way we could possibly fix our broken political system.

I'd also add that I no longer support presidentialism, I think the office of president should become a ceremonial one and we should switch to a parliamentary system with a prime minister and cabinet that report to Congress.

I think this would represent normal people much better because with our first past the post presidential system we just have two parties beholden to their donors and do not represent normal people. I'm personnally tired of supporting the lesser of two evils.

I think that would be a good idea, actually. New Zealand has a system where the legislature elects the prime minister. Also, the last paragraph here is my opinion 100%.

[Lechasseur]

I prefer IRV to PR.

IRV basically gives you a two party system anyway (look at the House of Representatives in Australia), I don't think IRV is the solution.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I prefer IRV to PR.

IRV basically gives you a two party system anyway (look at the House of Representatives in Australia), I don't think IRV is the solution.

But there's nothing inherently wrong about a two-party system. And IRV could potentially open it up anyway to third parties, provided they have sufficient local support. (see: the Greens in select urban districts in Tasmania and Victoria).
EDIT: the alleged two Green MPs are in fact only half as numerous. I was mentally counting Andrew Wilkie as a Green. He is a former Green member, but became an Indy in 2008, two years before entering Federal Parliament.

[Lechasseur]

I prefer IRV to PR.

IRV basically gives you a two party system anyway (look at the House of Representatives in Australia), I don't think IRV is the solution.

But there's nothing inherently wrong about a two-party system. And IRV could potentially open it up anyway to third parties, provided they have sufficient local support. (see: the Greens in select urban districts in Tasmania and Victoria).
EDIT: the alleged two Green MPs are in fact only half as numerous. I was mentally counting Andrew Wilkie as a Green. He is a former Green member, but became an Indy in 2008, two years before entering Federal Parliament.

Not in theory but in practice in a two party system both parties only represent the wishes of a wealthy elite and not those of the people.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I prefer IRV to PR.

IRV basically gives you a two party system anyway (look at the House of Representatives in Australia), I don't think IRV is the solution.

But there's nothing inherently wrong about a two-party system. And IRV could potentially open it up anyway to third parties, provided they have sufficient local support. (see: the Greens in select urban districts in Tasmania and Victoria).
EDIT: the alleged two Green MPs are in fact only half as numerous. I was mentally counting Andrew Wilkie as a Green. He is a former Green member, but became an Indy in 2008, two years before entering Federal Parliament.

Not in theory but in practice in a two party system both parties only represent the wishes of a wealthy elite and not those of the people.

A multi-party system can get corrupted too. Mexico is an excellent example of that.

[Sestak]

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Also, the Senate should stay as is.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think a party list system would be very alien to most Americans, in that it would lead to strong parties, three line whips and the decline of individual candidate focused politics.

I would use STV in the House, and I dunno, sortition in the senate?

[Dr. MB]

sortition in the senate?

You need people who actually want the job.

[IceAgeComing]

Some absolutely pedantic things: the quota was an STV election should always be based on votes cast rather than percentage and the Droop quota (number of votes/number of seats+1) is better than the one that you use since its more efficient and generally ensures that more candidates get elected with a quota and that smaller party candidates have a shot.  Also STV elections really start to get unmanagable when you get above six or seven seats and having a 55 seat California elected using STV would be all but impossible to handle if you wanted even the vaguest human monitoring of the count.  To give some examples for that; in the NI Assembly election of 1982 South Antrim had 66,000 votes past and ten seats to fill and it took them 42 hours of counting to complete the count; and that was without the possibility of any recounts if anything was very close.  In the 1925 Irish Seanad election they filled 19 seats using STV and it took the best part of a month to complete the count and it led to lots of candidates being elected on very small vote shares without a quota because voters didn't preference every candidate.  STV is only practical up to something like six seat constituencies; any more than that and you need to look at things like Open List PR or MMP or alternatives that have a list component.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Some absolutely pedantic things: the quota was an STV election should always be based on votes cast rather than percentage and the Droop quota (number of votes/number of seats+1) is better than the one that you use since its more efficient and generally ensures that more candidates get elected with a quota and that smaller party candidates have a shot.  Also STV elections really start to get unmanagable when you get above six or seven seats and having a 55 seat California elected using STV would be all but impossible to handle if you wanted even the vaguest human monitoring of the count.  To give some examples for that; in the NI Assembly election of 1982 South Antrim had 66,000 votes past and ten seats to fill and it took them 42 hours of counting to complete the count; and that was without the possibility of any recounts if anything was very close.  In the 1925 Irish Seanad election they filled 19 seats using STV and it took the best part of a month to complete the count and it led to lots of candidates being elected on very small vote shares without a quota because voters didn't preference every candidate.  STV is only practical up to something like six seat constituencies; any more than that and you need to look at things like Open List PR or MMP or alternatives that have a list component.

Hm. You do have a point there. Maybe split up the states with large populations using the shortest split-line method to remove intentional gerrymandering is maybe a better option. However that method does sometimes lead to unintentional gerrymandering, but no system is perfect.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think Reps should be regional. I'm not a fan of at large Reps unless the State population is below the threshold.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 600, and eliminate the Senate.

FIFY

[Sirius_]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 1000, and eliminate the Senate.

FIFY

FIFY

1000 makes it much easier to distribute seats proportionally.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 1027, and eliminate the Senate.

FIFY

FIFY

1000 makes it much easier to distribute seats proportionally.

FIFY

1027 makes a good ratio of 300,000 people per seat.

[Dr. MB]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 1027, and eliminate the Senate.

FIFY

FIFY

1000 makes it much easier to distribute seats proportionally.

FIFY

1027 makes a good ratio of 300,000 people per seat.

But 1,000 is a much cleaner number.

What about using the "Northern Mariana Islands plan" where the territories are given representation and the population of the smallest one (NMI) is used as the standard? That would get about 5,735 seats.

[Starpaul20]

Personally, for the House, I would increase its number to 547 (Wyoming Rule) and elect it via STV. To keep the STV system easier, the larger states would be split into smaller districts that elect 3, 4 or 5 members (I've actually been drawing maps like this to see how it could work).

The Senate I'd keep the same except elect the members using IRV.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Better than the current system, but I'd rather just use PR for the House (increasing its size to 1000 or so) and keep the Senate as it is but reduce its powers.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It would make the Senate and the House of Representatives much less representative.

I don't like the idea of writing Parties into our constitution.

Better to increase the size of the House to 1027, and eliminate the Senate.

FIFY

FIFY

1000 makes it much easier to distribute seats proportionally.

FIFY

1027 makes a good ratio of 300,000 people per seat.

But 1,000 is a much cleaner number.

What about using the "Northern Mariana Islands plan" where the territories are given representation and the population of the smallest one (NMI) is used as the standard? That would get about 5,735 seats.

I picked 600 because it would do that to Wyoming. Just throw the NMI into Hawaii or something if you're concerned about they're representation.