<html><head><style id="pgp_css" type="text/css"><!----></style><style id="css_styles" type="text/css"><!--blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
a img { border: 0px; }
li[style='text-align: center;'], li[style='text-align: center; '], li[style='text-align: right;'], li[style='text-align: right; '] { list-style-position: inside;}
body { font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 12pt; }
.quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px #ebebeb solid; padding-left: 0.3em; }--></style></head><body><div>In the United States there is no constitutional barrier to PR, with two partial exceptions (more on that below). The Apportionment Act of 1842, cited by Jan Simbera, was the first legislative mandate for single-member districts, but not the last. The most recent was passed in 1967 following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The motive in 1967 was to prevent Southern states from using at-large plurality (called "multiple non-transferable vote" or MNTV by political scientists) to deny representation to black voters. (MNTV is majoritarianism on steroids since a cohesive majority of voters can win all the seats.) PR would have accomplished this aim much better, but the political class in the U.S. was and still is extremely afraid of PR.</div><div><br /></div><div>The constitutional partial exceptions are (1) the Senate, in which each state has two representatives, regardless of population. And (2) seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states according to population. <span>Congress could mandate PR in states with two or more House members but the electoral threshold and degree of proportionality would have to vary by state.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>A<span> few states only have one seat in the House of Representatives, and a few more only have two. </span><span>To remedy this for the sake of PR and still comply with the Constitution, Congress would have to increase the number of seats from 435 to at least 1,135 and even that number would only give the state of Wyoming two seats (Wyoming has about 0.18% of the country's population). In a House of that size, the state of California would have roughly 135 seats.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>--Bob Richard</span></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>------ Original Message ------</div>
<div>From: "Jan Šimbera" <<a href="mailto:simbera.jan@gmail.com">simbera.jan@gmail.com</a>></div>
<div>To: <a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a></div>
<div>Sent: 11/15/2021 1:28:30 PM</div>
<div>Subject: Re: [EM] In defence of IRV</div><div><br /></div>
<div id="x401d668545db44f"><blockquote cite="CALAy1CtnUmcFTzV2pRdRg4GTdix5wB_xUcej3+id0xs0zLvSRw@mail.gmail.com" type="cite" class="cite2">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">I think in the US specifically there are constitutional barriers to multi-member districts.</span><br /><div><br /></div><div>As far as I understand both the US Constitution and [1], the barrier is not constitutional but on the level of a congressional act, making it much easier to change. Please correct me if I'm wrong!</div><div><br /></div><div>[1]: <a href="https://history.house.gov/Blog/2019/April/4-16-Apportionment-1/">The Apportionment Act of 1842: “In All Cases, By District” | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives</a></div></div></div></div><br /><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:05 PM Daniel Carrera <<a href="mailto:dcarrera@gmail.com">dcarrera@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small"><br /></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Jan Šimbera <<a href="mailto:simbera.jan@gmail.com">simbera.jan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">As an aside since the debate has broadened considerably anyway:<br /></div><div>To me, a Central European, it is still quite strange how little the</div><div>American debate on electoral reform focuses on the option of multimember</div><div>constituencies (the reform of House elections from single-member</div><div>districts to a per-state PR method perhaps being the most obvious candidate).</div><div>The main argument I find for the "first show support, then negotiate"</div><div>paradigm is that it gives the votes more expressive power</div><div>AND makes the negotiation process more transparent and observable</div><div>for the general public.<br /></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small">Yeah. I think multimember precincts are a brilliant solution but my impression is that anglo-saxon countries are really stuck on the idea of single member districts (Ireland being a notable exception). The argument I've heard is that the elected official is there to represent their particular region, but I've never been persuaded by that argument. I've lived in three anglo-saxon countries (Canada, UK, US) and national politics are always national. I've never heard of an MP or member of congress actually push for a little parochial issue that is specific to their particular spot in the country. It all seems to be party-line votes regardless. If politicians are going to behave that way, then we might as well just have a system with proportional representation. I would love to see STV in more places. I think in the US specifically there are constitutional barriers to multi-member districts.</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small"><br /></div>-- <br /><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif">Dr. Daniel Carrera</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif">Postdoctoral Research Associate</font></div><div><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif">Iowa State University</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</body></html>