Indeed that’s the intention, but in practice gerrymandering often leads to the opposite outcome where urban cores are divided up with large rural areas to suppress one side’s votes.
See Utah’s districts for the most obvious example of this. It would be logical to group Salt Lake City in one district, Provo + some suburbs in another, then the rural areas in the remaining districts. But instead the city is divided evenly such that each part of the city is in a different district, with every district dominated by large rural areas.
bufalo1973@europe.pub 7 months ago
Proportional representatives. Of a party gets a 30%of the votes, it gets a 30%ish of the seats.
iglou@programming.dev 7 months ago
The arguably huge downside of this, is that it cuts the direct line from you to a representative. That undermines democracy, because it undermines your capacity to be heard.
bufalo1973@europe.pub 7 months ago
Does your representative ever done something you asked for?
iglou@programming.dev 7 months ago
I’m not anerican so I’m unsure how pertinent my experience is.
But yes, my representatives often hold public neetings in which anyone is invited, although I don’t go there myself.
Jarix@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If the “direct line” is theoretical anyway it just doesn’t matter anyway.
I don’t have any citations sorry, but I did look into this about 15 years ago for reasons I no longer remember, and what I learned is that in most places with large overall populations that uses a system like this, where leadership is not voted for independently of local representation, the representatives overwhelmingly vote along party leadership not on the community they represent.
Not sure I’m explaining it well sorry