> You know what's funny, that's more or less exactly how states and districts are done in the US House of Representatives presently.
No. the difference is in Proportional Representation each district should have more than one seats (ideally 4-7) . each district will then sent 4-7 winner to the house .
4-7 people per district translates to 2000-3000 congressional representatives. Seems a bit much.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Ah, i meant each state that have more than 7 seats in House of Representatives divided themselves to District with 4-7 seats per district. so there will be a less district than current situation.
Den harde nordmann
It would still not be enough seats would it? :P
It also drives up the "default" since there is usually 1 large view in areas.
> It would still not be enough seats would it? :P
why not enough ?
> It also drives up the "default" since there is usually 1 large view in areas.
Yes, it dont help with "default", i only support Death Angel that Proportional would be better than FPTP.
Den harde nordmann
As mentioned, "fair representation" would be 4000 Representatives.
3-4*50 is a lot less than that.
Besides, representing also means you move to DC right? It means that if you sit long enough on your seat, you become alien to what did matter to you. But that is a unrelated issue.
In my country everything gets centralized to the capital. The politicans still do not represent the people. Example: The railroads and other infastructure that would enable us to do trade with Finland & Russia has not been touched since Hitler decided that it should be buildt. There is little to no will to fix problems providing it is outside of the capital.
And on the top of that we have the defaulters: It means that a incompetent party will automatic get 20-30% of the votes anyhow, making them unaccountable for their mess ups.
There seems to be several diferent issues that need to be separated
> As mentioned, "fair representation" would be 4000 Representatives.
why have to be 4000 to be fair ? legislature usually cease to be effective above 700, so limited representative is a must.
> 3-4*50 is a lot less than that.
Not 3-4 per state, just larger state can move to PR by changing district size to 3-4 rep per district
> Besides, representing also means you move to DC right? It means that if you sit long enough on your seat, you become alien to what did matter to you. But that is a unrelated issue.
Well, in theory you should care about voters on your district, or they won't re-elect you. As a city boy i am biased, but i think gov should support where majority of people located anyway.
> And on the top of that we have the defaulters: It means that a incompetent party will automatic get 20-30% of the votes anyhow, making them unaccountable for their mess ups
I agree with commenters above that some people always stupid, its not profitable to deprive their voting rights. democracy is worth giving idiot voting rights. beside if incompetent party become part of coalition gov, they will likely blamed and losing vote when there are economic slump or natural disaster. most defaulters will support gov party if their live okay, and blame them if live turn bad.
It's not a non-issue. It's an issue every 2 years for many people, who are effectively denied any chance of an impact on the vote.
So you get past it from time to time, it's still bad.