• candybrie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is one of the reasons multi-member, proportional districts make sense. Unfortunately, I think that would take a constitutional amendment for the house of representatives.

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is one of the reasons multi-member, proportional districts make sense.

      Yeah I agree. The issue I have with that is just I don’t think it would be very practical, especially for smaller states. The Kentucky legislature now only has 138 members, and as far as I know nobody knows any of them.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The main drawback of the scheme is that you’re usually voting for a party rather than a person. So, not knowing who any of the people actually fits in pretty well into it.

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The main drawback of the scheme is that you’re usually voting for a party rather than a person.

          Eh, if you had like a “top 3” system then you would be voting for a person. But I agree- voting solely being voting for a party is something I oppose(and why I prefer the US system to parliamentary systems)

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually, seeing you’re talking about the House elections, yeah I agree that would probably make sense, though it could over-double the size of the House. (And I don’t know that I agree that’s a good thing)