Approval_Voting

Would you support a non partisan commission redrafting the districts?

While not always the case, I've always worried that its difficult to keep a commission "non-partisan" when there is so much to gain if a party can influence its decisions.

For that reason I like to advocate algorithmic redistricting. Basically, you come up with some simple rules for splitting a state into districts (IE split population in half using shortest line), then apply those rules when census information updates.

Not the Senator, but I would like to offer my suggestion: Approval Voting. By allowing voters to "choose one or more" instead of just "choose one" you ensure its always in their best interest to vote for their honest favorite. This allows third parties to grow, escaping both the spoiler effect and Duverger's law.

Because Approval can be enacted at the state level, in many states through ballot initiatives, it is also obtainable right now. Oregon actually has an initiative right now to enact a unified approval primary.

Thanks for the response. Knowing there are people involved in Congress at any level who are aware of these issues gives me hope.

If you have a minute, I'd like to try and convince you that Approval Voting is better than Instant Runoff Voting.

I am interested in changing the election process itself, specifically by enacting Approval Voting. There are reams of evidence that this reform can improve governance, specifically help both incumbents (by avoiding the Spoiler Effect) and voters (by letting them always vote for their honest favorite). Do you have any advice in how to convince members of Congress that something relatively esoteric like voting systems is worth their time?

I'd like to offer dissenting opinion based on viability of reform. Campaign finance reform is going to be very challenging as there have been two Supreme Court cases already striking down limits as unconstitutional. Therefore even if you were able to convince congress to pass laws limiting money, they could very well be struck down yet again. While a constitutional amendment would be more permanent, it would be exceedingly difficult to pass. In either case you need national incumbents to vote to reduce their own hold on power. Seems unlikely.

The same is true for enacting proportional representation systems for electing Congressmen. At minimum this would require Congress to repeal this previous law to let each state hold their own multi-winner elections for the House. But that still leaves the Senate and small states who elect few House members screwed. Fixing that problem requires a constitutional amendment. Again, this seems unlikely.

What I would suggest is to use smaller reform as a stepping stone. For instance, each state can choose which single winner election method they use when holding its elections, even for national level elections. Furthermore, there are many states that could make such a change using a ballot initiative meaning you don't need incumbent votes, just people.

So what we need is a single winner voting system that can allow third parties to grow powerful enough for them to enact national level changes. For this I would suggest Approval Voting. Its trivial to describe and implement: "choose one" on ballots becomes "choose one or more" and then you just count all of the marks. It is one of the only systems where you can mathematically prove its always in your best interest to vote for your honest favorite. Some small reforms are even underway using it, such as this ballot initiative in Oregon which will have unified approval voting primaries, explained in this short video.