Not sure what you mean, get rid of districts? If you break up the population into groups then you get a geographic area.
SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s almost like the idea that representation based on land instead of based on people is flawed to begin with.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 1 day ago
SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yes. Representation should be proportional. In other systems of democracy, you vote a party and if that party wins 25% of the vote, then they win 25% of the representatives. Gerrymandering works because it’s based on land being more important to representation than people.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I think you could move somewhat towards having both. Let them gerrymander as much as they want, but at the end you also appoint additional districtless seats nominated by the winners, proportional to the number of votes they won by.
end_stage_ligma@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
y u no direct democracy?
Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We were never going to do representation by population. We barely got the southern colonies to agree to apportionment with land. (This was the 3/5ths compromise.)