
This is actually what America would look like without gerrymandering - hippich
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/
======
mtgx
I think this solution would be as close to ideal, because not only does it
eliminate the problem of gerrymandering by default, but it greatly increases
how well represented everyone in a district is.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-
theory/wp/2015/10/23/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-
theory/wp/2015/10/23/lets-move-beyond-winner-take-all-elections/)

[http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation](http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation)

You can let up to 3 people win in a district, where each needs at least 25% to
get a seat, or _even better_ let up to 5 win with at least 16.7% of the vote
(demonstrably more democratic).

~~~
jeremysmyth
It also has some emergent complexity that might not be immediately apparent
without having seen how it works in practice:

\- Success (i.e. being voted in) is considerably easier when you depend on a
proportion of the population than a majority, and this diminishes the power of
party political vehicles.

\- PR therefore encourages (or rather, discourages less) the formation of
splinter groups, "forked" parties, and independent candidates

\- It results in legislative bodies with no clear majority, which in turn
leads to coalitions of convenience (great for mapping to population majority
on single issues) but tends to destabilize governments that do not dance the
dance of diplomacy very well (because tyrannical "we have a clear mandate"
decisions don't work without a clear majority).

These are not necessarily bad features, because cooperation becomes regularly
necessary rather than an occasionally inconvenient task. It does mean,
however, that politicians have to be good at politicking to ensure they
continue to be important in a world where loyalty to the party is only a piece
of the whole pie.

If you add in STV
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote))
it gets even more interesting, because the transferable vote means each winner
has to have the approval of a majority of the electorate. This means that,
while in FPTP or simple PR, someone might get elected with (e.g. from parent
comment) 17% of the vote (meaning that up to 83% of the population voted
_against_ them), in PR with STV, at least 50% + 1 has to approve of the
candidate, to some extent.

Neither system removes the problem of gerrymandering however, because it's
still possible to draw a constituency that is statistically going to maximize
e.g. working class candidates, thereby reducing the impact of that electorate
on neighbouring middle-class constituencies.

