The Most Important Thing John Oliver Said About Gerrymandering, & the Solution He Failed to Mention

[annabanana]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/most-important-thing-john-oliver-said-about-gerrymandering-and-solution-he-failed?akid=15424.71875.-fNFAj&rd=1&src=newsletter1075502&t=12

A genuinely FAIR way to draw the district:

They call it: "Fair Representation Voting"

Here is how it would work: The 24 states electing five or fewer House members wouldn’t draw any districts at all and would elect their representatives at-large. Larger states would employ independent commissions to draw bigger districts that would elect between three and five representatives, rather than just one.

Instead of choosing just one candidate on Election Day voters would use ranked choice voting, which gives them the freedom to rank candidates in order of choice. Ranked choice voting ensures as many voters as possible help elect someone, and eliminates the “spoiler effect” which often leaves voters feeling pressure to vote for one of the two major party candidates. A majority of voters would always elect a majority of seats in a state or district, while like-minded voters in the minority could elect their fair share too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Single Transferable Vote systems can be strongly opposed

You'd be surprised at the number of people I've seen against them here on DU. A lot of people really feel that having a single representative for your district is important (even though they manage with 2 senators for their state). And many don't like the way it's possible for the order of first choice votes to be overturned in the final result, even though that is, to many (including me) part of its attraction, because it gets rid of the spoiler effect.

Looking at their website, it looks like they haven't totally committed to STV, but also suggest other ranked voting systems might be possible. This does, of course, show that the possible solutions aren't that simple.