I mean we can keep the SMDs for the small areas and have the large areas use MMDs. This would allow for mixed districts. Some think that PR would bring us instability, but what if we have 70% from mixed districts and 30% from state open list PR? We can still have single party governments but at the same time fair representation. Choice voting for district\nraces (IRV for SMDs, STV for MMDs or statewide races) and open PR could be the answers. We could also focus on giving our administrations (Guam, PR, DC, USVI & American Samoa) representation and we'd have to increase the size of the House. I say 480 is just right. The larger states could get alot of seats but the small states would get at least 3 seats. To get rid of Gerrymandering, each rep. would represent almost the same Nº of counties (divide Nº total members/ Nº counties) and people from one county don't have to split up. Choice voting consists of numbering as many candidates as you wish. The MMDs should have 3-5 members.
120874
Ahh sounds like a plan to me...but don't you think the MMDs should have more like 7 members?
416760
Aside from the monumental task of amending the Constitution to do this (basically Amending the current Federal system out of existence), how do you propose governing each "region?"\n\nDifferent States have fifferent geographical, demographic, and geological bases, and one "set of laws" would not cover all.\n\nNot to mention, without states, "popular vote" would decide the Presidency, and no regions other than the former New York, California, and Texas would ever see a Presidental Candidate.\n\nBut if you guys who live in States want to give up your rights/responsibilities to govern yourselves, go ahead - we Commonwealths will just take over...
92815
Its a lose-lose situation.\n\nUS will have nothing to gain since PR has already given economically what it can. Even If PR doesn't file Federal tax returns, PR still pays Social Security and Medicare, they also pay import tax on goods so everything is more expensive in PR the U.S. and yet the avg. family income is significantly less.\n\nPR already has the benefits of every other state, except for VOTING power. Our Resident Commisioner of the House only has voice in government but no voting power, and PR does not vote for president. (On a side note- why does PR have Democrat and Republican Parties?) \nBut just having that simple right which Americans tend abuse... is the only plus in any of this.\nThe PNP (pro-state) wants statehood so the US can't in the future dump us fend for ourselves. and the fear of independence is wide due to mainly their radical ways of promoving their ideals, in terrorist acts and protests.
546871
Not a wasted vote, but the start of something big. The way the political temperament is today it is ripe for a third party to get a foothold. The Libertarians platform which includes: 1. Freedom and Responsibility, 2. Freedom of Communication, 3. Freedom of Religion, 4. Property Rights, 5. The Right to Privacy and   6. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms are all based in the U. S. Constitution.  With over half the country independent of the two big parties there is plenty of room for all disenfranchised voters who have become disgusted with the "politics as usual" that permeates Washington today. The longest journey starts with but a single step.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nhttp://lp.org/
510008
I think it protects the rights of the smaller states.  If they didn't have this, they would have no say in the leader of the country compared to California, Texas, New York.....\n\nThey have a much higher percentage this way.  If Alaska would even less say than they have now.  It might not make much of a difference in most elections, but in a very close election, they could make the difference and hence the candidates have to appeal to them.
55608
Norm's answer is partially correct. He is talking about re-districting according to the Census returns. However, the re-districting in the news lately is slightly different.\n\nOur country is a representative Republic, so we cast our votes for representatives. These may be Congressmen, Senators, Presidential Electors, Assemblymen, Councilmen, or whatever. Everyone in the district casts their votes, and the winning candidate becomes the representative of that district. And, of course, there is a limited number of districts.\n\nThe re-districting you are hearing about in the news concerns altering the shape and contents of each district to obtain a desired political effect. This means creating the district so a particular group will have better or more fair showing when the votes are counted. Here are some examples.\n\nIt had been prevalent decades ago to create districts where each district had as few African American people as possible so their total political voice would be dissipated and minimized. In 1964, with the Voting Rights Act, Congress said that problems like this in the past could be "corrected" by creating new districts where the number of African Americans was a majority.\n\nThere has been an allegation that the re-districting in Texas was done to make as many State Legislature districts as possible have Republican majorities. It is suggested that this re-districting would have given Republicans a larger number of votes in the Legislature than would be proper by people's votes. Some Republicans have answered that the previous districting had given Democrats this same unfair advantage, and that this is another type of correction.\n\nI hope this helps.
322890
We have multiple third parties in this country.  It's just that they don't have as much resources or funds as the Democrats and Republicans, so most of the time they end up being either regional parties or one-issue parties.
636900
It has to do with many factors. Mainly the representative system. Since we have only a "winner takes all" Congress (meaning that only one person represents a district instead of a proportional representation system) a tow-party system tends to arise since only one can win the prize. For that reason parties tend to be center oriented, trying to attract the highest possible amount of voters. In a proportional representation system more parties would arise since the chance of getting a share of the prize is higher.\n\nOf course, while in theory American parties are center-oriented (and in practice they are), the fact that we have a low voter turnout, especially in mid-term elections can lead to a small share of the voting public to elect some wacko to the House of Representatives.\n\nAnother reason is that our institutions have been rigged by the historical two-party system and while we have many political parties in America we only have two national parties, and those parties have made it difficult for emerging political parties to become part of the game.
204405
If you want a repuglican congress and president into the far future split the democrtatic party and that is what you would get. We must all stand together and fight the oppresion of the repuglican party. I am tired of their idea of supply side economics. It just helps the rich and leaves the poor and middle class behind.
337013
This is a thorny issue.  The Democrats and Republicans seem to be very non-responsive to their constituencies.  It seems that the goal of both parties is simply to get re-elected.\n\nOn the other side, I lived in Germany for almost 10 years, and I can say that having multiple parties seems to lead to weak, ineffective governments.\n\nLooking at the the two options it seems that our choice is "six of one, a half dozen of the other".\n\nIf anyone has a plan, let me know.
21257
I have no idea what you mean. There are 400+ members of the House of Representatives and 100+ Senators. Each is from a specific district or area in one of the States. What are you referring to?
221806
50 states, and lots of other islands, etc. that are governed by us, such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa.  They wish they were states.\n\nSamoa, and Washington DC both have people in them, who for various reasons, wish to become states, but congress is to busy for their appeals.
581660
i've thought about this since the last election fiasco...there is really no way to ensure that it's fair and that every person gets their vote in, short of going door to door as in census time, and that would take forever.  It isn't fair though, that the majority in a state can completely throw off the fairness of an entire election...why should we be voting for a majority state by state?  that's fine for a gubernatorial election, since we are electing the head of the STATE, but i think that the countrywide popular vote should be tallied, a winner declared, and the election over.  The electoral college was appropriate for the time it was organized, but it's time has passed...i would like to feel like MY vote actually did count, and the only way to make that happen for a lot of people is to do away with the electoral college system.
551629
The political process in this country has been locked down in favor of the two parties for a long time.  The road for a third party would be extremely difficult.  First, the democrats would have to fail miserably in the next couple of years for there to be any movement to a third party.  Then, the public would have to organize massively in their discontent around another grouping and put the weight of their numbers behind it.  If that were to happen, then a third party might be viable.  But not without great numbers of people supporting it.
440059
Why not??  If they can SPLIT, then there's no reason you can't have two organize themselves into one.\nOur current major parties were once all part of the same party called the "Democratic-Republicans".
437650
Well, the country is too large to run a direct democracy, that fact must be put out there. Sure, you could try, but it would be agonizingly slow, especially if most of the country didn't understand what they were supposed to do, which, unfortunately, they probably don't.\n\nThat's why the United States has a representative democracy, or a republic. Basically, we vote in who we want to represent us with majority rule, and I believe we should keep it that way. Yes, it's slow, and can become corrupt, but you can't eliminate corruption. The thought of doing that is grand and all, but to eliminate corruption you would have to breed out emotions basically, because everyone has their own biases. They may not consider them biases, but they are.\n\nBasically, if someone can legally run for public office, I believe they should at least think of maybe trying. I plan on running for my district's house seat when I am legally able to. I'll probably fail the first few times, but I'd learn from my mistakes each kind. I just wish people would stop complaining that this is too corrupt and not do anything about it, like running themselves.
296516
Well there are 3rd parties around, Libertarian, Green, even Constitutional.  The problem is they do not have high enough profiles to breakthrough.  Libertarians and Greens have the most press but not enough to overtake D/R's.  Mainly because of failed strategies of trying to take the Presidency without making a dent in local politics first.  \n\nAs I see it 3rd parties can have two successful strategies.  First, start locally and slowly build a base as you climb the political ladder.  That's a main reason the 2 majors are so successful they have plenty of candidates to choose from the lower political ladder.  Think baseball with their farm system.  This is slow but steady wins the race mentality.\n\nSecond, push for election change in the way we elect House members.  As it stands right now, House districts are based on population.  This dilutes 3rd party votes between several different districts and almost insures that the 2 major party candidates will never face a real opponent save one from the other major.  I think that deciding represention in the House by proportion would be a better.  My home state of Florida for exampele has 25 House seats if we went to a proportional system then 3rd parties could realistically gain 1-3 seats.  Not alot but if you consider large/bigger medium represented states then you could be talking what 20-25, and the difference today in the House is what 15?  3rd parties could realistically become the powerbrokers in the house and make the 2 majors at least pay attention to them.  It would also give them a jumping off point for bigger offices.