Mar 28, 2023Liked by Steven Hill

Unfortunately, to replace single-seat districts with multi-seat super districts at the Congressional level will require an act of Congress - repeal of the 1967 Single-Member District Mandate. However, states could lead by example by implementing proportional ranked choice voting in multi-seat state level districts. In my opinion there are only two valid criticisms of proportional RCV multi-seat districts. The first is with open primaries there are just too many candidates to accurately rank. If there are seven seats in a district and five candidates for each seat, then there would thirty-five candidates to rank. A typical voter identifies two or three preferred candidates and a couple undesirable candidates. For multi-seat districts, Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) would be superior to RCV. The second criticism of multi-seat districts is that a majority of winners could be in close proximity geographically and have too much influence in the district.

Expand full comment

Hi Dale, I agree, states would be an excellent place to try out a P-RCV configuration with multi-seat districts. In terms of the number of candidates needing to be ranked, ranking would be optional, not mandatory. As you say, most voters has a handful of candidates they prefer, and that's perfectly fine. Each voter's "transferable ballot" would ensure that their vote is not wasted. Regarding STAR, I would suggest that it might be good to get it passed in a few small cities first, and see how it actually works in practice, before jumping to elections for Congress. Every electoral method has pros and cons and even some of them have unintended consequences. It would be good to see how STAR plays out in a few local elections. Thanks for your thoughts!

Expand full comment