This is an interesting and worthwhile idea, although there would be some risk to the majority party of whichever state implemented it first, as it would likely prevent “monochrome” (i.e. single-party) states. For example, if Texas and California implemented it simultaneously, that could work. Otherwise, blue states would have to pass laws making implementation contingent on implementation of the same by another state that was the mirror image in terms of number of reps and proportion of support for each party.
I believe the presumption would be that if it is to be adopted for the U.S. House of Representatives, it would be a universal adoption caused from a change in Federal Law. Current Federal Law requires single-member U.S. Representative districts. So that would need to be changed.
But a single State could adopt this at the State level. For a State Legislature or at least one house of her Legislature.
I will be suggesting something like that in my substack in a bit: lpinstitutum
I think you're kind of misrepresenting the Court's approach to Section 2.
They're not "re-considering the *legality* of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act", they're reconsidering the *constitutionality*of "interpreting it to mandate racial gerrymandering". Nothing in the text of the statute mandates that interpretation, IIRC, it actually came as a surprise, the Act might not even have passed if people had expected it to be applied in that manner.
The Court has been gradually moving away from the idea of racially discriminating to compensate for past racial discrimination being permissible, more and more embracing the idea that "the only way to stop racial discrimination is to stop racially discriminating". That all the excuses for further racially biased policies have finally reached their sell by date, and the government is constitutionally required to pursue only race blind policies.
So, what's the difference between reconsidering race conscious measures, and reconsidering Section 2 itself? Section 2 is still available to prohibit actual racial discrimination. It's just that you'd have to demonstrate racial discrimination, rather than assuming it on account of disparate impact. And your remedy would have to be stopping the discrimination, not counter-discrimination.
I like PR, I think it's a great idea. I believe it is currently banned for federal office by law? You'd have to deal with that first, all those incumbents who don't want to risk being able to keep their seats under a different system. Similar issues exist at the state level, but in many states ballot initiatives are available to circumvent the legislature.
What's the international experience with proportional representation (PR) with districts that elect fewer than a dozen or two representatives? In Germany they chose parties that divide up a pool of 299 candidates, if I understand their system correctly. I'm not sure whether PR would work as well in districts with a handful of seats.
The vast majority of democracies use some form of list system, it is extremely flexible. Germany's system is a form of list, known as mixed-member. It is a tiered or hybris system, with single seat and a nationwide PR set of compensatory seats.
Thank you. I just subscribed to CGP grey's YT channel. After poking around a little, I see that Ireland has a number of 3-5 member districts that use PR (of the single transferable vote variety (STV)).
Speaking generally, there's nothing like empirical experience. Approval voting has some strong theoretic features, but tends to be vulnerable to electoral ambushes by small committed factions, particularly in low profile races.
This is an interesting and worthwhile idea, although there would be some risk to the majority party of whichever state implemented it first, as it would likely prevent “monochrome” (i.e. single-party) states. For example, if Texas and California implemented it simultaneously, that could work. Otherwise, blue states would have to pass laws making implementation contingent on implementation of the same by another state that was the mirror image in terms of number of reps and proportion of support for each party.
This is an interesting and worthwhile idea, although there would be some risk to the majority party of whichever state implemented it first, as it would likely prevent “monochrome” (i.e. single-party) states. For example, if Texas and California implemented it simultaneously, that could work. Otherwise, blue states would have to pass laws making implementation contingent on implementation of the same by another state that was the mirror image in terms of number of reps and proportion of support for each party.
I believe the presumption would be that if it is to be adopted for the U.S. House of Representatives, it would be a universal adoption caused from a change in Federal Law. Current Federal Law requires single-member U.S. Representative districts. So that would need to be changed.
But a single State could adopt this at the State level. For a State Legislature or at least one house of her Legislature.
I will be suggesting something like that in my substack in a bit: lpinstitutum
https://lpinstitutum.substack.com/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5uoo7g
I think you're kind of misrepresenting the Court's approach to Section 2.
They're not "re-considering the *legality* of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act", they're reconsidering the *constitutionality*of "interpreting it to mandate racial gerrymandering". Nothing in the text of the statute mandates that interpretation, IIRC, it actually came as a surprise, the Act might not even have passed if people had expected it to be applied in that manner.
The Court has been gradually moving away from the idea of racially discriminating to compensate for past racial discrimination being permissible, more and more embracing the idea that "the only way to stop racial discrimination is to stop racially discriminating". That all the excuses for further racially biased policies have finally reached their sell by date, and the government is constitutionally required to pursue only race blind policies.
So, what's the difference between reconsidering race conscious measures, and reconsidering Section 2 itself? Section 2 is still available to prohibit actual racial discrimination. It's just that you'd have to demonstrate racial discrimination, rather than assuming it on account of disparate impact. And your remedy would have to be stopping the discrimination, not counter-discrimination.
I like PR, I think it's a great idea. I believe it is currently banned for federal office by law? You'd have to deal with that first, all those incumbents who don't want to risk being able to keep their seats under a different system. Similar issues exist at the state level, but in many states ballot initiatives are available to circumvent the legislature.
What's the international experience with proportional representation (PR) with districts that elect fewer than a dozen or two representatives? In Germany they chose parties that divide up a pool of 299 candidates, if I understand their system correctly. I'm not sure whether PR would work as well in districts with a handful of seats.
The vast majority of democracies use some form of list system, it is extremely flexible. Germany's system is a form of list, known as mixed-member. It is a tiered or hybris system, with single seat and a nationwide PR set of compensatory seats.
CGP grey made videos about all these systems a long time ago worth watching, I think STV is his favorite.
Thank you. I just subscribed to CGP grey's YT channel. After poking around a little, I see that Ireland has a number of 3-5 member districts that use PR (of the single transferable vote variety (STV)).
Speaking generally, there's nothing like empirical experience. Approval voting has some strong theoretic features, but tends to be vulnerable to electoral ambushes by small committed factions, particularly in low profile races.
This is an interesting and worthwhile idea, although there would be some risk to the majority party of whichever state implemented it first, as it would likely prevent “monochrome” (i.e. single-party) states. For example, if Texas and California implemented it simultaneously, that could work. Otherwise, blue states would have to pass laws making implementation contingent on implementation of the same by another state that was the mirror image in terms of number of reps and proportion of support for each party.
Check out my most recent post and tell me if my idea would solve most of these issues.
We should uncap the house
This sounds like a great idea.
But is it possible? Would it pass Constitutional muster?
Could it be passed through congressional legislation?
Or would we need a Constitutional amendment?