[FYI] Regarding gerrymandering: Nirvana's former bassist's plan to fix gerrymandering in order to end Congressional dysfunction

[George Sanders]

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/krist_novoselic_my_plan_to_fix_congress_curb_obstruction/  

But I don't really see how this will seriously mitigate Congressional dysfunction, though it would seem to get us more 'fair' representation within our present voting system. HOWEVER, I contend that Approval Voting (and Score Voting) would make gerrymandering ineffectual. I plan to write an Op-Ed shortly in my own inimitable style on this subject, so please advise if you agree or disagree with my premise:  

LET’S PUT AN END TO PARTISAN POLITICS & GOVERNMENT GRIDLOCK!

Here’s the simplest and fastest way:

Simply expand our foolish Plurality method of voting ( “Vote for just one”) into Approval Voting

(“Vote for one or more”). Same ballots and elections, but simply count ALL the votes!

Here’s why:

• Political parties and primaries will no longer be needed to eliminate ‘spoilers’ who detract from one another’s vote totals.

• Many more candidates will be able to run on their own platforms, and they’ll owe their allegiance directly to us. NO MORE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM—EACH PARTY TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE OTHER!

• Big-money political donations will have less direct effect (too many candidates to ‘bribe’).

• Gerrymandering will no longer work (a large field of independent candidates are impossible to gerrymander against).

• More people will vote and have more faith in their elected officials.

• And our elected officials will be able to do a better job: The use of Approval Voting in our legislative procedures will select the most-approved parts of lots of bills on the same subject—to quickly put together legislation most approved by the most people possible (and with less wasteful pork-barrel legislation as well).

Discussion-forum participants: do you approve?

[Dale Sheldon-Hess]

I don't know what Salon is doing for user logins, but it will not let
me sign in via google or facebook.

But let me say at least this, and maybe someone who can login to the
site can repeat it there:

Connecticut has ZERO county-level government. There are no
county-level elections, certainly not by some knock-off
faux-proportional system like this. State-wide and federal returns are
sometimes reported by county, and that's it. I don't even know where
they get this stuff, or how it could survive basic fact-checking.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Drew Spencer]

I'm not sure if this is what he was referring to, but I know that Hartford and Waterbury, Connecticut both use limited voting with limited nominations. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania also has limited voting for some number of seats. Limited and cumulative voting are also used in a number of local jurisdictions in North Carolina, Alabama, and Texas.

These are far from ideal proportional systems, but they do break up winner-take-all, which is the first step toward moving the U.S. toward a really proportional voting method for representative bodies. And that really is the way out of gerrymandering and the constant redistricting wars.

Drew.

--
Andrew Spencer