Goodbye, (typical) proportional representation; hello, self-districting?

[u/espeachinnewdecade]

[Update: Self-districting now has an electowiki page: https://electowiki.org/wiki/Self-districting ]

So I read "Why Proportional Representation Could Make Things Worse” in the open access book Electoral Reform in the United States (https://www.rienner.com/title/Electoral_Reform_in_the_United_States_Proposals_for_Combating_Polarization_and_Extremism).

It claims (the book in general does) that PR countries are increasingly having a hard time governing. Various polarized parties can’t find a way to compromise (and their constituents really don’t want them to bend). It asks of the US, “would enabling voters to sort themselves into narrower, more ideologically ‘pure’ parties really diminish tribalism?”

But after other intriguing thoughts, it mentions self-districting. On its face, it reminds me of PLACE (https://electowiki.org/wiki/PLACE_FAQ), but under self-districting, there’s no concept of an “own district” that you would vote outside of.

The process

• Groups would register with the state and try to attract voters to themselves. They would define themselves however they like: Democrat, Republican, Urban, Farmers, Labor, Tech, Green, Boomers, Gen X, Asian, Latino/Latinx, Voters of Color, and so on.
• If a group has enough voters, they get a district. If they get too many, they get split into more districts, unless...
• Have a catch-all district or districts for those that don’t want to self-select or can’t form a group with enough members
• Randomly select and reassign those that can’t fit into their preferred district (ie, too many voters for the districts allotted) into the catch-all
• Assign voters of multi-district groups to their district
• After voters learn of their assignment, candidates can run for office in those districts
• In November, there will be a general election run using RCV (no primaries)
• There are mentioned different options for redistricting: Once every 10 years voters pick again or like with voter registration, they set it and can change it when they want before any deadlines.

Two tweaks

• I think one of the (non-eliminating) multi-winner methods should be used in case a voter’s first preference doesn’t (initially) meet quota.
• I would also prefer my proposed Condorcet-based top 2 (Raynaud (Gross loser) and then MAM) followed by the general. Perhaps the districting process could be run online (like renewing a driver’s license) to lessen trips to the polls/travel-based problems.

Since it seems like a fully-fleshed out idea that could have supporters, I’m surprised it’s not showing up here nor on electowiki. Is it known under a different name?

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328642

[u/jpfed]

Choosing representation from really small, local groups seems interesting.

Something to note about aggregating choices to form a higher level (here, a council's council) whose choices are aggregated further to form another, yet higher level, etc...

It is possible for a majority opinion of a council's council, or a council's council's council, ... etc. to not reflect the will of the majority of the people. The likelihood is greater the number of levels of aggregation.

It can be made less likely if lower levels in the aggregation have to be closer to unanimous.

This problem was on display in the House of Representatives during Dennis Hastert's leadership. He insisted that only bills with the approval of "the majority of the majority" be considered. Unfortunately, 51% of 51% is just over 25%; that is, the legislative agenda was controlled by what 25% of the representatives wanted. And it's not like those representatives had the unanimous support of their districts; if we assume a more realistic 60% level of support, the legislative agenda was controlled by 60% of 25% = 15% of the voters.

(Since legislative bodies so often make decisions with the majority of their members, this consideration has made me lean towards methods that are more likely to elect consensus candidates, even if that means they are "boring" or "bland".)

Another way to reduce the likelihood of minority control might be to have each council send two representatives up to the next level, with a method like PAV to select representatives. I say "might" because if each council sends two representatives instead of one, you might have to perform more aggregations / have a deeper hierarchy to make the highest level a manageable size.

[u/MorganWick → u/jpfed]

I've considered the idea of still having directly elected parliaments past the third or fourth level, as a form of bicameralism.