- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is an idea to solve the problem of fair representation, and specifically to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering.
A common practice for creating voting districts is to group together a subset of the population to vote for a representative. That representative then ostensibly represents that subset of the population in state or federal legislatures.
However, the rise of national parties has caused representatives to vote along party lines most of the time. There is an assumption that because the voters elected that representative, the voters also want whatever that representative’s party is offering. This is not necessarily true, especially when districts have been gerrymandered.
In the United States in the 2022 election for the House of Representatives, 213 Democrats and 222 Republicans were elected. There were no independents elected to the House of Representatives. The salary for members of the House of Representatives in 2022 was $174,000. Multiply that by 435 representatives to see that the United States spends at least $75,690,000 every year to hear just two voices: Democrats and Republicans. This does not include special leadership positions that get paid more, or any of the additional benefits these members receive, or any of the fundraising that they do to get elected.
The large number of representatives elected in the United States is due to the Constitution and public laws passed since then that assign a number of representatives to each state approximately proportional to its population. Those representatives then show up in the House of Representatives and cast their votes, and this ostensibly represents the people if we ignore the effects of gerrymandered districts.
The people would be better represented if, instead of electing multiple representatives of the same party, each state elected a single representative for each party and that representative is then assigned a number of votes instead of just one vote.
For example, if this were in place in 2022, the House of Representatives would be comprised of 100 voting members, 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, where the Democrats have a total of 49% of the vote and Republicans have a total of 51% of the vote. This is the same distribution of power as under the existing system, but instead of 40 Democrats and 12 Republicans from California voting along party lines, it would be 1 Democrat with 40 votes and 1 Republican with 12 votes voting along party lines. If there were no gerrymandering in California, this would be the same result as the existing system but less expensive. Instead of 435 representatives there would be only 100, a 77% reduction in expense — at least $58 million in savings annually.
However, in states where there are gerrymandered districts, the outcome would be somewhat different and the number of votes assigned to the representative from each party would more accurately reflect the proportion of the population in that state who wants to be represented that way.
In each state, the registered political parties would each nominate a representative. The representatives would appear on the ballot along with their political party (or “Independent”). Each voter casts a vote for the person they want to represent them in the House of Representatives. If a party or independent receives at least 1% of the vote, it sends a representative (or that independent). However, a representative only has voting power proportional to the election results.
We can take this a step further. Currently American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands send non-voting delegates to the House of Representatives. In a similar fashion, each state can send a non-voting delegate to represent people who are not represented by the large political parties — everyone who voted for a party or independent who ended up with less than 1% of the vote. This would give at least a voice to people with a different perspective, some representation instead of nothing at all. The party representative or independent with the most votes compared to others who received less than 1% of the total vote would be the non-voting delegate. That delegate would then have a duty to be the voice for all the parties and independents who received less than 1% of the vote.
Example 1. Alabama gets 7 votes in the House of Representatives. To control a 1/7 vote, a party must win a block of at least 1/7 (14.285%) of the direct popular vote in the state. In 2022, that was 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Each of Alabama’s 7 districts has approximately equal populations, between 700,000 and 730,000 people. If people in Alabama were able to elect their representatives in a state-wide election instead of district elections, the results might be that Republicans get 74.9% of the total vote, Democrats get 21.1% of the total vote, Libertarians get 3.7% of the total vote, and independents get 0.3% of the total vote. Under the proposed changes, Alabama would send three representatives to the House of Representatives representing each party that received at least 1% of the vote — one Republican (74.9%), one Democrat (21.1%), and one Libertarian (3.7%). However, these representatives would not have the same voting power. The Republican representative would have at least 5 votes because 74.9% is greater than 5 blocks (71.43%). The Democrat representative would have at least 1 vote because 21.1% is greater than 1 block (14.285%). The last block represents 3.47% Republican voters, 6.8% Democrat voters, 3.7% Libertarian voters, and 0.3% Independent voters. Alabama would send three voting representatives: a Republican with 5 votes, a Democrat with 1 vote, and a Libertarian with a partial vote. The three voting representatives will take an internal vote on the use of the 7th voting block on each proposal, and the majority (at least 7.14%) will cast the vote for that block. This means whenever two out of the three Alabama representatives agree on a proposal, they cast a vote with the 7th block.
Example 2. Montana gets 2 votes in the House of Representatives. To control a 1/2 vote, a party must win a block of at least 1/2 (50%) of the direct popular vote in the state. In 2022, that was 2 Republicans. Each of Montana’s 2 districts has approximately equal populations, between 547,000 and 556,000 people. If people in Montana were able to elect their representatives in a state-wide election instead of district elections, the results might be that Republicans get 53.10% of the total vote, Democrats get 33.35% of the total vote, Libertarians get 2.6% of the total vote, and independents get 10.95% of the total vote. Under the proposed changes, Montana would send four representatives to the House of Representatives representing each party that received at least 1% of the vote — one Republican (53.10%), one Democrat (33.35%), one Independent (10.95%), and one Libertarian (2.6%). The Republican representative would have 1 vote because 53.10% is greater than 1 block (50%). The second block represents 3.10% Republican voters, 33.35% Democrat voters, 10.95% Independent voters, and 2.6% Libertarian voters. The Democrat representative would have 1 vote because the Democrat 33.35% is more than the 25% required to control the last block. Therefore, Montana would send two voting representatives (1 Republican, 1 Democrat) with one vote each and two non-voting delegates (1 Independent, 1 Libertarian).
Example 3. Nevada gets 4 votes in the House of Representatives. To control a 1/4 vote, a party must win a block of at least 1/4 (25%) of the direct popular vote in the state. In 2022, that was 3 Democrats, 1 Republican. Each of Nevada’s 4 districts has approximately equal populations, between 757,000 and 807,000 people. If people in Nevada were able to elect their representatives in a state-wide election instead of district elections, the results might be that Republicans get 50.31% of the total vote, Democrats get 48.44% of the total vote, Libertarians get 0.90% of the total vote, and independents get 0.35% of the total vote. Under the proposed changes, Montana would send three representatives to the House of Representatives representing each party that received at least 1% of the vote — one Republican (50.31%) and one Democrat (48.44%). The Republican representative would have 1 vote because 50.31% is greater than 2 blocks (50%). The Democratic representative would have at least 1 vote because 48.44% is greater than 1 block (25%). The last block represents 0.31% Republican voters, 23.44% Democrat voters, 0.90% Libertarian voters, and 0.35% independent voters. The Democrat representative would get the last block because the Democrat 23.44% is more than the 12.5% required to control the last block. Therefore, Nevada would send two voting representatives (1 Republican, 1 Democrat) with two votes each and one non-voting delegate (to speak for Libertarians and independents).
If a minority party or independent receives at least 1% of the vote in each of the 50 states, that means three representatives from each state would be sent for a total of 150 representatives and a minimum annual cost of $26,100,000 — that’s at least a 65% cost reduction.
If each state also sends a non-voting delegate, that would be three representatives and one delegate from each state would be sent for a total of 150 representatives and 50 delegates. Assuming they all get paid the same, that is a minimum annual cost of $34,800,000 — at least a 54% cost reduction.
In summary, we could save at least half of the money we currently spend on salaries and benefits for members of the House of Representatives while making that representation reflect the intent of the people of each state more accurately by eliminating the possibility of gerrymandering and assigning votes to parties based on their percentage of the total popular vote in the state, and giving a voice to minority perspectives even if they don’t have enough support to vote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.