Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 6:37 p.m. EST by leebert
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If districts in the USA are still single-member districts we'll end up in the same mess again and again, with tycoons divvying up districts to suit themselves, with votes being wasted as voters find themselves isolated away from like-minded voters, district-by-district and state-by-state.
You really want to threaten the status quo? Fight the Two-Party juggernaut at the basis of their power: Single Member Districts.
The Dems & Repubs cemented their hold power when they broadly instituted laws that banned cross-endorsement of candidates by two parties (say, Bull Moose & Democrats endorsing Teddy Roosevelt, or Republican & NY Conservative endorsing Ronald Reagan). These " anti-fusion" laws were instituted in response to Teddy Roosevelt's break-away Bull Moose Party. The Bull Moose breakaway was America's closest brush with a functional proportional representation.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires single-member districts. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent all the states from doing the following:
1). States apportioning their Congressional seats from proportional districts. Bill Clinton's first Civil Rights appointee, Lani Guinier, had once suggested this as a remedy for the Gerrymandering in North Carolina, & the GOP went ballistic, calling her a "radical."
2). States apportioning their Presidential electors proportionally. Nebraska & Maine already do this, district-by-district. Other options are available to the states.
You really wanna FIX the system? Start here.