Posted: Nov 16, 07 12:47pm
In the "Welcome" discussion, SweetMotherOfMars wrote: "There is always the prospect of moving people-who-vote / think-differently into voting districts that could use diluting. (A variation on gerrymandering?)"
This got me thinking about an election reform known as cumulative voting. Basically, instead of electing House members from single-member districts, there would be several larger multi-representative districts in a state (the total number of Reps doesn't change).
In the simplest model, each voter would get a number of votes equal to the number of representatives, but would not be required to vote for the maximum number of people to be elected. If there are 3 representatives to be elected each voter has 3 votes. These votes can be split between 1, 2 or 3 candidates as the voter instructs. Three votes for one candidate, 2 for one candidate and 1 for another, etc. In some systems, fractional voting is allowed. The three candidates with the highest total votes are elected.
This would allow a particular interest group (anti-war, pro-choice, even anti-immigrant) to target their votes and have some representation even in a district where a majority of the constituents have a different view on that issue.
I see a great advantage over gerrymandering, which assumes that some particular ethnic or racial group is best represented by being the majority in a district. Instead, with cumulative voting, an interest group of any sort can decide if it's worth having their candidate elected even if it means the other candidates from the district would be elected by other voters (with their cumulative votes).
In theory, a relatively small minority of the district (possibly as low as 20%, I haven't done the math) could have their views represented in Congress if enough members of that group decide to cast all 3 votes for a particular candidate.
This gets away from red and blue states and moves toward more purple states (and districts). It takes much of the political scheming out of gerrymandering - with the Tom DeLay orchestrated redistricting in Texas a prime recent example of the divisiveness that causes - and puts more power back into the hands of the voters.
Whadya think?
