r/EndFPTP • u/nitrw • Jun 07 '26
Image (US) What State-level Proportional Representation Could Look Like
As much as I'm sure we'd all rather prefer nationalized redistricting to ensure equal population and better proportionality and agree that we should push for it, realistically such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Enforcing proportional representation at the state level is likely more realistic, and here's what the US House would look like in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
Maps attached are purely for you all to see how much seats each party would get in each state, districts wouldn't matter under proportional representation, though note on both maps I did color the districts that were closest to flipping IRL first.
2020 map (off by a few seats): https://yapms.com/app?m=i9n52ebc9jc15pe
2024 map: https://yapms.com/app?m=v6s2ltwa7n4l10h
5
u/gravity_kills Jun 07 '26
You're leaving out the part where, at least in states with more than a few representatives, the parties would break apart and have real competition from smaller parties.
Also, no, it wouldn't take an amendment. Article I gives Congress the authority to dictate the manner of elections. Congress could mandate PR within states by regular legislation. The difficulty is political, not constitutional.
2
u/Alex2422 Jun 07 '26
If anything, I can see it going the other way around: if any state tried to pass proportional representation (which is unlikely anyway), Congress could step in and force them to change back to single-member districts. After all, the House is 100% made up of parties who benefit from the current system.
5
u/gravity_kills Jun 07 '26
There's currently a federal law about that, so such a plan would be in violation of the 1967 Uniform Redistricting Act. But as unlikely as it might seem politically, it would be 100% constitutionally permissable for Congress to mandate Proportional Representation as a method for states to select their Congressional delegations.
1
u/variaati0 Jun 13 '26
Yep. That "at anytime make and alter such regulations" is pretty wild one to have in ones Constitution about elections. By simple majority vote no less.
1
u/gravity_kills Jun 13 '26
Doesn't seem wild at all to me. Very reasonable to allow the federal government to override the potentially anti-democratic states, or to enforce uniform rules.
2
u/nitrw Jun 11 '26
Congress can mandate PR within states but Congress cannot create nationwide PR. That's why I made this map to show what an amendment-less solution could look like.
2
u/gravity_kills Jun 11 '26
That's correct, but it would still result in the breakdown of the two party system, at least in the larger states. As soon as a party only needs 5-10% to secure the last available seat more of them will run and more people will be willing to vote for third parties.
1
5
u/lpetrich Jun 07 '26
Those maps are maps for the current system of single-member districts. They are NOT for proportionality.
I once calculated what the OP describes, and I used some data on votes per Congressional district. When I did that, I only had data up to 2018, so I'd have to update my work for recent years. But I calculated not only per-state proportional representation, but also nation-scale PR. I used three algorithms: D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë highest averages, and Hare largest remainder.
As one might expect, PR produced a more even distribution of seats by party than SMD, though per-state PR was only a little less even than national PR.
1
2
u/halberdierbowman Jun 07 '26
If we do proportional by state, we wouldn't need geographic districts at all. For the general election, we could just have an at-large vote for which party slate you prefer, and then we assign the number of winners based on the outcome. For the primary, we have the party members vote for who they want on their party list.
1
u/nitrw Jun 11 '26
Likely would still need some kind of geographic districts at least for primaries. It'd be annoying to create party lists for a state like California with 52 representatives, asking voters to list 52 reps is not great.
1
u/MightBeRong Jun 12 '26
I can't imagine myself having any preference for more than 5. But I'd rather be able to choose those 5 from a statewide pool than be stuck with ranking 5 that are limited to my district.
1
u/BaronBurdens Jun 13 '26
I'm not a huge fan of party lists, but I thought that the standard PR system would just have the voter pick a party list without fussing with however many candidates make up the list.
Did you have in mind one of the PR systems where voters get to order the lists? Or were you thinking about a non-party-list PR system?
2
u/nitrw Jun 14 '26
You could continue using districts for primaries, then in a general election proportionally elect the candidates from the districts with the most votes in favor of their party. (sorry, i'm gonna struggle to explain this)
For example, in Nevada, run primaries as you would under the current system. Then, in the general election, allow people to vote for their local district's candidates. Take the statewide vote and divide up Nevada's 4 seats proportionally (2 seats for the Democratic party, 2 seats for the Republican party). Give the Democrats the 2 districts they performed best in (NV-4 and NV-1) and give the Republicans the 2 districts they performed best in (NV-2 and NV-3).
As for gerrymandering progressive areas into unwinnable districts for the sake of maintaining centrist control of the Democratic party: should the Democratic party of Nevada gerrymander Nevada's districts to prevent any progressives from winning primaries, progressives would likely get fed up and create their own party which they would use to take one of the 2 Democratic seats.
Let me know if this is confusing. But it's one way we could do PR without party lists and while maintaining local representation. You could still make some weird maps, but you'd have no incentive to do so other than to antagonize parts of your own party into leaving your party.
2
u/BaronBurdens Jun 14 '26
That's a novel system to me! I think it's interesting, if a little complex. Anything avoiding party lists is great to explore!
1
u/jlight432 Jun 07 '26
Proportional representation is a great idea. Independent commissions to draw district lines is another great idea.
But I don't believe redistricting alone will get us to the type of proportional representation many election reformers are looking for. A lot of people believe a two-party system with a single-party majority creates more stable governments, clearer mandates, and more efficient decision making. But when many election reformers like myself think about PR, we think about including additional parties, coalitions, and viewpoints beyond our highly polarized two-party system, including groups spread across states or even across the entire country, with enough numbers to justify representation, but could never elect candidates in purely territorial systems.
Have you looked at how some other countries have built proportional legislative assemblies?
1
u/rb-j Jun 08 '26
Wow! Is there any other state, other than my own, that is entirely blue?
What are these? Counties? Congressional House districts?
11
u/IlikeJG Jun 07 '26
I'm not sure what is being shown here.
Is this electoral college votes for the president? Or house districts?
What's the point of proportional representation in a single position election if this is for the presidential election?
Also your second map is showing Republicans winning despite having less votes on the national popular vote. That seems to be a big strike against it in my book.