Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at lavabit.com
Thu Feb 2 11:22:00 PST 2012

On 02/02/2012 07:24 AM, Bryan Mills wrote:

> Single-winner is required by 2 USC Sec. 2c:
>     [...] there shall be established by law a number of
>     districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such
>     State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only
>     from districts so established, no district to elect more than one
>     Representative [...]
> I can't find a proper citation for requiring FPTP in the source where I
> saw it; that part may be mistaken.  So that might might admit the
> possibility of using an alternative single-winner method within
> districts, but it's not at all clear to me that that would help
> significantly given the susceptibility of single-winner districts to
> gerrymandering.

Could you get around this by making "show districts" that are linked to 
the candidates, but having the election happen on a larger scale?

Say you have a state with 5 districts, and you run a statewide 5-member 
STV election for the House. Say further that a {candidate, district} 
pair's score is the number of first preference votes that candidate got 
in that district.
After the 5-member STV election, you then assign winners to districts so 
as to maximize the sum of the districts' scores, subject to that a 
district can't be assigned to an out-of-district candidate.

Does that run afoul of "no district to elect more than one 
Representative"? If so, the question is how much interaction would be 

For instance, you could imagine a party-based system where, if there 
were disproportionately many Democratic candidates, the power of each 
Democratic-candidate vote would be attenuated until proportionality is 
restored. That kind of scheme would have proportional representation, 
but no voter would vote for an out-of-district candidate. (It would also 
have the weird result that the FPP winner of a district might not 
actually win that district.)

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list