Hacker News Reader

> Those that get rid of districts entirely lose the ability for specific sub-regions of a state to have their own dedicated representative to vouch for their specific needs.

It's doubtful whether that still exists as anything more than a foil/justification though, given Congress's expansion was stopped a century back, and each Representatives now stands in for at least half a million people (RH has the lowest number of citizens per rep' at 530k) and up to a million (Montana, population 1042520, currently has a single rep'), with the average closing in on 740k (up from ~710 during the last census).

Can a rep' really vouch for the specific needs of 700000 people any more than a proportional delegation would?

It's unclear to me that the House of Commons manages to do that, and they've got 650 MPs for 65 million people (or ~100000 people per MP on average, though the average electorate is lower, and it has very extreme low ends, Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an electorate of under 22k).

The people in CA-8 (Mojave Desert) have very different needs and concerns from the people in CA-12 (San Francisco) even though they represent the same number of people.

Actually, under Open List PR, you could still have de facto local representatives. Someone could focus their attention on the needs of the Mojave Desert dwellers and get elected or not based on their popularity in the desert. PR doesn't prevent people from focusing their attention on geographic regions; it merely creates other alternatives.

> All to say that, while different methods for representation should absolutely be considered and discussed, it's important to remember that none of these are a panacea

Well, other than that more proportional results, by whatever means, seem consistently across modern democracies to provide government with which the people are more satisfied, and also provide a higher dimensionality to the range of political ideas and debate. (See Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy.)

Every options has positive and negative traits, but single-member FPTP districts are about the worst, on balance.

Well, worst would be that plus having districts that don't even try to have similar population, so that the results are even less proportional than you'd expect with FPTP in single-member districts.

The Thirty Thousand project aims to fix the problem gradually by scaling the number of representatives to the population:

> As shown above, in 1804 each Representative represented approximately 40 thousand people. Today, the average population of congressional districts is nearly 700 thousand and growing.

> In order to restore the House to the citizenry, our total number of federal Representatives will have to be increased substantially. Achieving this goal is essential to extending the ground of public confidence in our government and ensuring the beneficent ends of its institution.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

> Those that get rid of districts entirely lose the ability for specific sub-regions of a state to have their own dedicated representative to vouch for their specific needs. This matters less in small states and countries, but can mean quite a lot in very large states.

The solution to that, however politically difficult, is to break the larger states into smaller ones. New York City, for example, shares very little politically or economically with the rest of New York. Similarly with the various regions of California -- Silicon Valley and Los Angeles are as different from each other as both are from the areas north of San Francisco.

Breaking up the big liberal states has been proposed by conservatives, because they want to get more conservative leg members. We'd need to break up conservative states too. There has been discussion of breaking Seattle off into it's own state or country. That would add a Republican Senate and House Rep, since the test of the state is more conservative, so you have to do a 3 way breakup of WA state. Anyway, these things are all hard to achieve and infeasible in practice. IMHO.

There is a similar issue with switching states away from 'winner takes all' in the electoral college.

If a liberal state does it, it costs liberals votes. If a conservative state does it, it costs conservatives votes. It seems pretty clear that such a system is fairer, and yet no-one wants to actually do it.

Twenty-three states have already passed the National Popular Vote bill, which will in effect switch all states from winner-takes-all when it covers a majority of the electoral college: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

The issue with that is demographics change over time, so any attempt to break states up into more politically/economically uniform pieces will become outdated over time (like if a large city expands beyond its current boundaries). So you'll have to change the state lines periodically, and then you've still got the issues of redistricting, only now on a national level instead of a state level.

The other solution is to have mixed representation where a portion of the seats represent districts and the rest are allocated to match the proportions voted for by the state. In this case each voter gets 2 votes: 1 for their district and 1 for a party.

Mixed-member proportional representation provides for geographic districts, while still ensuring that every party gets no more seats than its popular vote percentage.

You can hardly do MMP in America. Several states have only one or two seats, where MMP would be equivalent to FPTP or block vote - a significant step back.

You'd need to do it on the national level, not state. Our parties transcend state boundaries anyway, and House was always supposed to be representing people as a whole; the states have the Senate for their representation as entities.

I dunno, I'm just trying to play with the rules that exist. There's a dubious federal law designed to ensure minority representation which seems to prohibit proportional representation, but seeing as it so abjectly fails to achieve its goals it may have no grounds to stand on. A state which thought democracy was a good idea and might be useful trying in the US[] could unilaterally introduce a bill and it may succeed in the courts. But it's unthinkable that you could get enough states to pass an amendment to the constitution to abolish state-based districts without an experiment in proportional voting in the US first.

[]: I don't mean to say FPTP is undemocratic - Canada is plainly democratic - just that America isn't democratic in much the same way one says Russia isn't democratic. If the government is intent on not hearing the will of the people, it will find a way.

those low-population states should use STV systems (as should states for senators)

> Those that get rid of districts entirely lose the ability for specific sub-regions of a state to have their own dedicated representative to vouch for their specific needs.

Not if they establish their own parties.