Hacker News Reader

Comment by minot | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I think fully proportional meaning getting rid of districts is the best idea. The entire state is one district, parties publish a ranked list well before the election, and based on the votes everyone got, the top n people from the party's list get elected.

We still have a problem though: how many seats does each state get? Do we still continue to apportion seats each state gets every ten years on a census?

View on HN

> We still have a problem though: how many seats does each state get? Do we still continue to apportion seats each state gets every ten years on a census?

This seems to work and nobody has an issue with the high-level apportionment.

The only criticism I've heard of it is the 435 cap, which is kind of arbitrary, and now one rep represents way too many people.

What would the number of representatives look like if it was fluid and we said the unit is the smallest state that only gets one representative is the yard stick?

A quick search shows Wyoming is the smallest state by population with 578,759 so if we decreased the apportionment from seven hundred thousand something to that 578,759, how many more seats would we need?

If a state with a population of 578,759 gets one seat does a state with population of 578,759 * 2 - 1 get two seats or one seat?

round up or down as needed. 330 million / 578000 is 570 representatives, give or take. To put this in perspective, the current French National Assembly is 577 members, the Italian Chamber of Deputies is 630 members, the UK House of Commons is 650 members, and the German Bundestag is 709 members.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com