Tweet
A modest proposal
Here’s a radical idea for electoral reform.
Determine the number of congressional representatives from each state based on the average number of ballots cast in the three previous mid-term elections.
Since every state gets at least one representative, the state with the fewest ballots cast – Wyoming – sets the standard. In the 2010, 2014, and 2018 midterm elections, Wyoming cast an average of 189,083 ballots. So, each state gets a representative for every 189,083 ballots cast (rounded off).
The US House of Representatives would comprise 629 representatives, 194 (44.6%) more than the current 435.
Who would be the winners and who would be the losers?
Florida picks up 17 seats, a 63% gain from 27 to 44. California gets 14 more reps, up from 53 to 67. Other states getting at least five more congressional seats include Michigan (9), Pennsylvania (9), Texas (8), Ohio (8), Colorado (7), Georgia (7), Virginia (7), Washington (7), Massachusetts (6), Minnesota (6), New York (6), Wisconsin (6), Missouri (5), New Jersey (5), and Oregon (5).
Wyoming, West Virginia, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii get no new seats.
Overall, consistently red states would gain 45 seats and blue states 52 seats. The other 97 seats would go to places like Florida that are considered swing states.
Two more considerations.
First, why use a three-election average turnout rate? The reason is another of my pet peeves, term limits. If the number of seats is based on three mid-terms – that’s six elections – then we can set that as a maximum number of terms per representative. That would allow for less frequent adjustments, which would be less disruptive.
Second, how would the new congressional seats be distributed within the state? Because the state is being rewarded for civic consciousness, it makes sense to elect any new representatives on an at-large basis. In such a system, a 6th district voter in California would vote for not only that district’s representative, but also for the other 14 new seats. A preferential ranking system would probably work best. Under such a system, the voter puts his or her favorite candidates on the top of the list, and least favorite candidates on the bottom.
This new system would require much greater voter participation in the form of actually getting to know who’s running and what they stand for. But, the rewards would also be far greater.
Great resource: http://www.electproject.org/home/
Here’s a radical idea for electoral reform.
Determine the number of congressional representatives from each state based on the average number of ballots cast in the three previous mid-term elections.
Since every state gets at least one representative, the state with the fewest ballots cast – Wyoming – sets the standard. In the 2010, 2014, and 2018 midterm elections, Wyoming cast an average of 189,083 ballots. So, each state gets a representative for every 189,083 ballots cast (rounded off).
The US House of Representatives would comprise 629 representatives, 194 (44.6%) more than the current 435.
Who would be the winners and who would be the losers?
Florida picks up 17 seats, a 63% gain from 27 to 44. California gets 14 more reps, up from 53 to 67. Other states getting at least five more congressional seats include Michigan (9), Pennsylvania (9), Texas (8), Ohio (8), Colorado (7), Georgia (7), Virginia (7), Washington (7), Massachusetts (6), Minnesota (6), New York (6), Wisconsin (6), Missouri (5), New Jersey (5), and Oregon (5).
Wyoming, West Virginia, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii get no new seats.
Overall, consistently red states would gain 45 seats and blue states 52 seats. The other 97 seats would go to places like Florida that are considered swing states.
Two more considerations.
First, why use a three-election average turnout rate? The reason is another of my pet peeves, term limits. If the number of seats is based on three mid-terms – that’s six elections – then we can set that as a maximum number of terms per representative. That would allow for less frequent adjustments, which would be less disruptive.
Second, how would the new congressional seats be distributed within the state? Because the state is being rewarded for civic consciousness, it makes sense to elect any new representatives on an at-large basis. In such a system, a 6th district voter in California would vote for not only that district’s representative, but also for the other 14 new seats. A preferential ranking system would probably work best. Under such a system, the voter puts his or her favorite candidates on the top of the list, and least favorite candidates on the bottom.
This new system would require much greater voter participation in the form of actually getting to know who’s running and what they stand for. But, the rewards would also be far greater.
Great resource: http://www.electproject.org/home/
Comment