Gerrymandering is a complex issue. We want to let communities vote without outside interference, allowing, for example, a hispanic community to elect a hispanic representative, despite being surrounded by non-hispanic people. But we don't want one political party to use it to prevent subsections of people from having a voice in politics.
So here is a radical, new version of democracy to consider. I call it Quadrant voting.
Basically, we group districts into sets of three to five contiguous quadrants, with a requirement of each state having no more than 3 quadrants having less than or more than 4 districts. All votes are done over an entire quadrant, for the party, not the candidates.
In the primary elections, the parties members select the four (or 5 if the quadrant has 5 congressmen), best vote getters, and they rank them from least to most popular.
Say your quadrant (like most) was entitled to 4 congressmen and the GOP had six nominees in the primary. They would end up with the 4 highest vote getters being listed in the general, for example: #1 Smith (most votes), #2 Johnson, #3 Rodriguez and 4 Peterson.
When the General election is held, you vote for the party, not the man, and you get just a single vote for the entire quadrant. In a 4 district quadrant, if your party wins 21% of the vote, you get one congressmen, 42% you get two, 63% you get 3, 84% you get four congressmen. (Three District, the numbers are 26%, 52% and 78%. Five District quadrant use 17%, 34%, 51%, 68%, and 85%). So Peterson only gets elected if the GOP gets 84% of the quadrant's vote.
Given our current system, most of the time the quadrants would be fighting to get to 63% for the third vote.
Note that this makes the primary more important. The quadrant system basically ensures that the congressional make up will match the state's make up, and that party's best vote getter will always stay in power - it's only their secondary people that get kicked out. It's really hard kick someone out of power if their own party likes them.
Moreover, it ensures that communities can elect someone that represents them. Have a city that's 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 40% white? You are going to get one at least one black, one Hispanic and one white congressmen. Only the last one is up for debate.
More importantly, gerrymandering is now meaningless. Make one quadrant 90% black, you just gave them four congressmen and less than 6% wasted votes. Make your own quadrant 63% Republican, your opponent still gets one out of 4 congressmen - two if your party does something stupid and loses some of the expected vote.
Basically, much fewer votes get wasted.
It would make minor changes more important for the general vote count.
The downside is you are voting for the party, not the man. People at the center of big scandals would still get elected if they were more popular inside their own party - it would be their less popular associates that pay the price, rather than them.
Effectively, this Roy Moore would win, but it would also mean that they would have a lot less power. And his own party would be very very upset with him for losing them votes.
It would also mean that a lot more states would be much closer to 50-50.
So here is a radical, new version of democracy to consider. I call it Quadrant voting.
Basically, we group districts into sets of three to five contiguous quadrants, with a requirement of each state having no more than 3 quadrants having less than or more than 4 districts. All votes are done over an entire quadrant, for the party, not the candidates.
In the primary elections, the parties members select the four (or 5 if the quadrant has 5 congressmen), best vote getters, and they rank them from least to most popular.
Say your quadrant (like most) was entitled to 4 congressmen and the GOP had six nominees in the primary. They would end up with the 4 highest vote getters being listed in the general, for example: #1 Smith (most votes), #2 Johnson, #3 Rodriguez and 4 Peterson.
When the General election is held, you vote for the party, not the man, and you get just a single vote for the entire quadrant. In a 4 district quadrant, if your party wins 21% of the vote, you get one congressmen, 42% you get two, 63% you get 3, 84% you get four congressmen. (Three District, the numbers are 26%, 52% and 78%. Five District quadrant use 17%, 34%, 51%, 68%, and 85%). So Peterson only gets elected if the GOP gets 84% of the quadrant's vote.
Given our current system, most of the time the quadrants would be fighting to get to 63% for the third vote.
Note that this makes the primary more important. The quadrant system basically ensures that the congressional make up will match the state's make up, and that party's best vote getter will always stay in power - it's only their secondary people that get kicked out. It's really hard kick someone out of power if their own party likes them.
Moreover, it ensures that communities can elect someone that represents them. Have a city that's 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 40% white? You are going to get one at least one black, one Hispanic and one white congressmen. Only the last one is up for debate.
More importantly, gerrymandering is now meaningless. Make one quadrant 90% black, you just gave them four congressmen and less than 6% wasted votes. Make your own quadrant 63% Republican, your opponent still gets one out of 4 congressmen - two if your party does something stupid and loses some of the expected vote.
Basically, much fewer votes get wasted.
It would make minor changes more important for the general vote count.
The downside is you are voting for the party, not the man. People at the center of big scandals would still get elected if they were more popular inside their own party - it would be their less popular associates that pay the price, rather than them.
Effectively, this Roy Moore would win, but it would also mean that they would have a lot less power. And his own party would be very very upset with him for losing them votes.
It would also mean that a lot more states would be much closer to 50-50.
No comments:
Post a Comment