Introducing: The Fair Representation Act
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июн 2017
- The Fair Representation Act has just been introduced to Congress by Representative Don Beyer (VA-08) and has the potential to fundamentally solve the problems facing our broken politics. Visit www.FairRepAct.com to learn more and get involved.
![mgk - I Think I’m OKAY (with YUNGBLUD) (Sad Version) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7AC1uqQLIg4/mqdefault.jpg)
For anybody with an analytical mind who watched this video wondering just what they're talking about and how it works, and how it could make things better, I recommend CGP Grey's "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" series, which goes over it (as well as some other things *not* talked about in this video, but that's to be expected since the series is several years old) in detail. It covers why FPTP is a bad system and exactly how ranked choice voting works, as well as exactly how Single Transferable Vote systems (which I believe is what they're talking about here) work.
It's several videos long, and I really wish he'd do a playlist of them, but you can find it just by doing a YT search for the user and then looking at his video list for anything with pictures of animals or horizontal bar graphs in the thumbnail, beginning with "The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained." Be sure to watch them in chronological order; they make much more sense that way. :)
There is one small change I would change to the Fair Representation act and that is allowing for multi member districts up to 9 members each so we can have a better proportional result. I would also get behind repealing the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act so we can expand the size of the lower chamber.
You guys should really just hire someone to help you with videos, the audio mixing and editing here is below amateurish, very distracting. Very excited for the cause though!
The music isn't helpful.
wish you would explain how the mechanics in detail rather than just spew platitudes about how great your idea is. Why would there be "between 3 and 5 members per district"? would members of a district have to vote together as a block, or partake in congress as a whole?
Each member would be free to vote their conscience regardless of how others from their same district would vote. 3-5 members per district would be elected to represent the district in accordance to the votes elected in their district. So if we had a 5 seat district and 40% of voters prefers one party (or group of independents) in that district, they would get 2 of the 5 seats.
@@wiimooden why would some districts have 3 reps and some have 5 reps
@@alexbutler9343 If rural areas for example had 5 reps, then the district would be comically large. Furthermore, not every state has a representative count divisible by five, Virginia for example has 11 reps so would need some combination with at least one four or three rep district.
@@wiimooden ah okay. so smaller number of reps for districts with smaller populations.
the video effects are great, but wobbly camera and serious sound issues are distracting (as kendall said). Cool reform though!
Sean Doyle improvement over much of the channel though
Love this!
It's much better than the present system.
I WANT TO READ THE BILL? Where can I find the bill before the house?
Here you go! fairvote.app.box.com/s/piak37gxv4h9zoyyzncay6k1t2wmfg5s
I want to point out there will be some issues, for example in a state with 6 seats and it has two constituencies with 3 seats each. If a party wins 42% of the vote, theoretically it should get 3 seats. However since it wins 42% per constituency with 3 seats each, it gets 1 seat in both constituencies, meaning it has won 2 seats in total, which is under representative. It is possible to establish 5 to 7 seats for states with 5 and above seats in all. For those with fewer seats, you can require them to use 3 to 5 seats in a constituency. And those states with below 3 seats, they're lost.
Sounds great but why would Congress pass this and put "their jobs" at risk? This sound more like something that should be addressed in a Convention of the States where the incentives of those proposing and voting on it are different.
But the states are, controlled by state legislatures which are much like the federal Congress.
When will the bill be introduced?
@Darkness www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4000 Brought back as of 2019
We should always look for ways to improve our country. Never fear change.
but still do the right change.
There are lots of "ranked-choice voting" systems. STV, IRV, Borda, Schulze, Ranked Pairs, etc.
Which one are you advocating for these multi-member districts?
There's a "Memo" on FairVote's site that explains that it's basically STV, but it devolves into IRV for single-member states. Is that right? IRV is a very flawed, unrepresentative voting system, so I don't think we should be supporting this.
@@eyescreamcake It isn't though
@@holdenennis What isn't what?
@@eyescreamcake IRV is not flawed, although I think a two-round system is better.
@@holdenennis IRV is flawed, and two-round system is even worse. Both systems work terribly when there are more than two strong candidates.
Is the act still in Congress, now?
Yes, he keeps re-proposing it each session.
Would you please update this video without the music? It is challenging for neurodivergent folks to connect with the content because of the music. It is also propagandistic. Your ideas are so good. You never need that background racket. Thank you for your videos.
STV may be OK for multiwinner cases, but it is incorrect for the single-winner case.
The appropriate choice for singe seat elections Is still RCV. Another name for STV is Multi-Seat RCV.
The reduction of STV to the single-winner case amounts to IRV. IRV does not provide equality of political power for each voter. Moreover, IRV permits spoilers, contrary to the advertising by its advocates.
Three-member districts are still susceptible to gerrymandering and disproportionate results.
Yes, but in sparsely populated regions like in the mountain west, districts with more than three members would be ludicrously large, so we would have to deal with a couple three member districts, but not enough that it would have a huge impact on politics.
Representative government is a leftover idea from the time when information moved at the speed of a horse.
We have the technology to create a system where people vote directly or through a revocable proxy.
Great video. You've got a good group of people to talk about the issue, and everything they say is true.
However...
The FRA in its current form won't ever pass Congress. It's just too disruptive; every single incumbent, from either party, would worry about their own seat being lost. If it ever got more than a few token sponsors, the leadership of both parties would unite to smother it.
Does that mean that there's no hope, that we can never reform our election system to fix the many real problems (gerrymandering, hyper-polarization, uncompetitive elections, etc.) this video highlights? No, it doesn't! The basic idea of the FRA can be done in a way that still gets all the benefits of solving those problems, but is less disruptive. All it takes is a bit of modern voting theory.
The FRA is based on a specific kind of proportional representation, known as STV (single transferable voting). STV was designed over 100 years ago and has been used by over a dozen US cities. But the reform was repealed in almost all of those because it was easy for political elites to denigrate its complex ballots and centralized vote-counting procedures.
Other, better forms of prop-rep exist. Some of them, such as PLACE voting (wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PLACE_FAQ ) can give all the benefits of STV without requiring redistricting or new voting machines. They'd actually offer voters even broader choices but, because districts wouldn't have to change, be less disruptive to legitimately popular incumbents.
It is really disconcerting how many of the people who want to fix the voting System don't bother to actually understand Voting system. Ranked Choice is not a fix(non of it) . What you need for the house of representatives is proportional representation.
Ranked Choice Voting and Proportional Representation aren't mutually exclusive.
You can have both at the same time. In fact, they are even better if combined.
You can have Ranked Choice Voting to elect single-winner positions, such as the president, while using Proportional Representation for multi-winner positions, such as electing members of the congress.
It is also possible to use Single Transferable Vote, which is a multi-winner voting system that combines Ranked Choice Voting and Proportional Representation into a single system.