In reply to Beer Baron ๐บ :
This is one of those things where pretty much every other developed nation has figured out a way to make it work, so surely we can too.
But we aren't other nations. We currently have no provision for that type of proportional representation, and as I said It would take a constitutional amendment to implement it. Eve then I'm not sure that would stick.
The video I shared earlier about Single Transferable Vote addresses many of these issues. If we were to adopt a system like that it might look something like...
I will use Ohio as an example because I live here. There are 99 members in the Ohio State House of Representatives - 99 districts each with one member. You could just take groups of three contiguous districts and roll them up together into 33 larger districts with 3 representatives each. When you go to vote, instead of a ballot with 2 or 3 candidates (perhaps a 3rd party with no winning chance). You would get a ballot with 6+ candidates that you rank your preferences of. Based on order of preference, 3 total seats are assigned.
You are taking about two different things. Ranked choice, which is allowed in elections in some states. That is not the same thing proportional representation, though I see how you combined them in your example. Back to your example, your 99 districts is already an example of proportional representation, since each area gets it's own representative. I fail to see how rolling those 99 districts into larger districts with less representatives would result in more diversity of representation. It seems to me that would more likely give the dominate party more control, not less. The way to do it (that some other countries use) is that you register for one party or the other. The registration is a pre vote, that determines how many seats that party gets. If there are 100 seats, party A has 55% of the voters, B has 40% and C has 5%, then 55 seats are reserved for A candidates, 40 for B, and 5 for C. That sounds like a really tough task to change the balance over time, and what about those who don't wish to affiliate with a party?
This is not perfect and would not result in exact representation of percentages by party, but in practice results in something that is much more proportional. It has several other big benefits: Gerrymandering becomes much less effective, 3rd party candidates have a viable chance, you can vote for better options within preferred party if you want someone out.
Not perfect, but certainly better than we have.
By what metric do you measure that to be better? It looks to me like the above example would result in a less flexible, more locked in form of government. I think you are looking at a snapshot of other countries in one moment in time, thinking it looks better. You are missing the affects that system has over time. To you, it looks like more equal representation. To the people in those countries belonging to parties with less seats, it may look like being the perpetual underdog. At least here, any one election can have any result. We see that frequently. If one party goes too far, the other is there to take control. It's self regulating in the long run, even if you don't like the short term results. If one party knew how much power they would have coming out of the election before a single vote was cast or a candidate was chosen,
I don't think that would be a good thing, my party or not.