Posted on 07/08/2017 1:12:03 PM PDT by TBP
But would politically neutral redistricting in itself yield significantly more competitive and less polarized politics? Would it ensure greater political diversity and increase the legitimacy of Congress?
The answer is no. Regardless of how you slice the map, the vast majority of Americans will live in so-called landslide districts, in which either Republicans or Democrats win by overwhelming margins. Today’s voters rarely split their tickets and are self-sorting such that the median county in the 2016 presidential race was won by more than 40 percentage points — triple the median margins in the 1990s.
Step 1 is to elect House members with ranked choice voting in primary and general elections, a system proven in a dozen cities and adopted in Maine for congressional elections. Voters are able to rank candidates in order of choice, and their votes go to second choices if their first choice is in last place and loses.
Step 2 is to establish congressional districts with multiple representatives. Smaller states with fewer than six seats would elect all seats statewide. In bigger states, independent commissions would draw districts designed to elect up to five seats based on traditional criteria like keeping counties intact. Multi-winner districts were used in some House elections as recently as the 1960s and remain common in local and state elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Fakenews. They already are bipartisan. Just the uniparty playing games.
America better catch on.
You could make more congressional districts. They should be limited by size of constituency not total number allowed. They represent so many people now that they are unresponsive. Reps aren’t supposed to be. Also term limits but that’s a pipe dream.
The NY Slimes doesn’t seem to care about a bi-partisan Congress when the Republicans are in the minority. Screw-em.
Exactly. The average House member now represents around 750,000 or more constituents. It’s hard to be a local representative for a “community” that large. We should vastly increase the number of House members. But they’ll never do it; that would reduce their power.
Another topic for an Article V convention?
Exactly!...but lets just change the Constitution without amending it...Those dumb old white men didn't understand how easy it would be to fix things without all those checks and balances..../s
A good start would be to stop the Uniparty
The vile, corrupt, racist, evil Democrat Party--the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow, and the Ku Klux Klan--should have NO representation in the U.S. Congress.
Gerrymandering does not make a substantial difference in the government so long as the 17th Amendment still stands.
The Framers never intended for there to be political parties; or at least, they never intended for the parties to have the power that they do today.
The current 2-party system we have is an abomination of the constitutional provisions for each House of Congress to make their own rules. These “rules” have been used to create the current 2-party system.
Why, it’s been shown that multi-member districts discriminate against minorities! Is the NY Times racist?
Almost certainly; they're liberals.
“But would politically neutral redistricting in itself yield significantly more competitive and less polarized politics?”
What is it they really seek when they say “more competitive” AND “less polarized” electoral politics?
You’ll find the answer in California. Yes, less “polarized” as one party has a near legislative monopoly with 2/3 majorities in both houses, but “more competitive” “neutral” (non-partisan ) primary elections are not.
One they do is get one partisan set of “the important issues” and that partisan view about those issues dominating the “non-partisan” primary.
What they really mean by “less polarized” is NOT, neutral, not “bi-partisan”, not “moderate” just more in agreement with the political agendas of those who seek the “non-partisan” primary elections in the first place.
They are NOT to “enhance” competition. They are to eliminate it. Just look at California.
“Unity” - as in can’t we all just get alone means one thing and one thing alone to the left - agreement with them.
Actually, competitive seats are not good. A legislator in a safe seat can say no to a greedy lobbyist; a legislator in a competitive seat cannot.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.