Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hollo, the main reason why they don't have just a single state-wide election for seats is because I think you forget how big our states are sometimes.
Austria is ~84k square km and ~8.6m people.
Ohio is ~116k square km and ~11.6m people.
And Ohio is only the 31st largest and 7th most populous state out of the 50.

I do know the US isn't Austria. Thanks for reminding me how small and unimportant we actually are though :)
Then again, India also holds nationwide votes.

(10-17-2017, 04:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So the people in Cleveland, 400km away from Cincinnati, might be in the same state, but they have different needs/motivations/weather/economy. So it wouldn't make sense for people in Cleveland to be voting on who would represent Cincinnati's interests. It would be like Vienna voting on who should represent Lienz, being roughly the same distance apart. That's hardly a unique example, either. Tallahassee, FL to Miami, FL is 770km, but they're in the same state. That's why the Senators are two per state, but House is based off population and split.

OK, couple things. First, I guess not all issues are regional issues. Congress has to deal with nationwide laws influencing the whole nation, and foreign policy, the differences between Cleveland and Cincinnati should dissipate largely on most issues.
If any, I might even see these regional interests as disadvantageous. What didn't they try to get health care passed... one district gets that gimmy, another state some other gimmy, just so the regional guy votes in line. That's not particularly healthy and just promotes the need for dirty dealings like that, to the disadvantage of many.

Besides, Clevelanders can still vote for guys that have more Clevelandish solutions to problems. But if a region is only thinly populated and holds fewer souls, why should they get the same say as regions with more population. It's like rewarding smaller communities to the disadvantage of larger ones, and I do not think that's ideal democracy. When Cleveland has enogh voters so Cleveland ideas have to be considered, fine. If they don't, well, then Cleveland issues get less attention and that's just democracy. A Cleveland vote will always be counted and weighed just as much as any other vote from any other region, and I seriously believe that's all a Clevelander or anyone else really is entitled to or can ask for.

As for Vienna and Lienz, first of all I do not want Lienz to be influential and see no urgency to ensure the few souls there get their big share of say. Second, Lienz issues still can be solved in Lienz, I am not advocating to remove mayors or state governments. Regional policies, that's what these more regional governments are for. For nationwide issues, not so much.

Actually, here's roughly what we do. We basically have two lists for the parties, a regional one and a nationwide one. So you wouldn't really need to put a large state's vote into just one pot. You split the country in regions and calculate a number of votes in that districts that constitute a direct mandate. So let's say there are four seats in a region, 25% of votes in that region mean one seat is filled directly. The rest of the votes go to a national list (a list lead by Hillary and Trump, just to lay out the idea). So there's no danger that New York (or LA...) politicians take over disproportionally.

The reason I do not concur with your stance is that you could make that argument on any scale, be it in kilometres (yeah thanks for that, so open-minded :) ) or regarding population density etc. Districts of one city can have quite the different demographics, too. These differences don't necessarily apply to physical distances. I would guess that Cleveland's and Cincinnati's interests match way more than the interests of the countryside in between.

Also, you've acknowledged it, but I still think my idea deserves credit for solving gerrymandering. Something that could happen another way, problem is it wasn't solved by now, so there's a chance it never will be.

Having said all that, I do get your point still. Maybe there's a better solution than the one laid out. But I guess the status quo ain't that better solution.