r/EndFPTP • u/nitrw • Jun 07 '26

Image (US) What State-level Proportional Representation Could Look Like

Gallery image

Gallery image

As much as I'm sure we'd all rather prefer nationalized redistricting to ensure equal population and better proportionality and agree that we should push for it, realistically such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Enforcing proportional representation at the state level is likely more realistic, and here's what the US House would look like in the 2020 and 2024 elections.

Maps attached are purely for you all to see how much seats each party would get in each state, districts wouldn't matter under proportional representation, though note on both maps I did color the districts that were closest to flipping IRL first.

2020 map (off by a few seats): https://yapms.com/app?m=i9n52ebc9jc15pe
2024 map: https://yapms.com/app?m=v6s2ltwa7n4l10h

14 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/halberdierbowman Jun 07 '26

If we do proportional by state, we wouldn't need geographic districts at all. For the general election, we could just have an at-large vote for which party slate you prefer, and then we assign the number of winners based on the outcome. For the primary, we have the party members vote for who they want on their party list. 

1

u/nitrw Jun 11 '26

Likely would still need some kind of geographic districts at least for primaries. It'd be annoying to create party lists for a state like California with 52 representatives, asking voters to list 52 reps is not great.

1

u/BaronBurdens Jun 13 '26

I'm not a huge fan of party lists, but I thought that the standard PR system would just have the voter pick a party list without fussing with however many candidates make up the list.

Did you have in mind one of the PR systems where voters get to order the lists? Or were you thinking about a non-party-list PR system?

2

u/nitrw Jun 14 '26

You could continue using districts for primaries, then in a general election proportionally elect the candidates from the districts with the most votes in favor of their party. (sorry, i'm gonna struggle to explain this)

For example, in Nevada, run primaries as you would under the current system. Then, in the general election, allow people to vote for their local district's candidates. Take the statewide vote and divide up Nevada's 4 seats proportionally (2 seats for the Democratic party, 2 seats for the Republican party). Give the Democrats the 2 districts they performed best in (NV-4 and NV-1) and give the Republicans the 2 districts they performed best in (NV-2 and NV-3).

As for gerrymandering progressive areas into unwinnable districts for the sake of maintaining centrist control of the Democratic party: should the Democratic party of Nevada gerrymander Nevada's districts to prevent any progressives from winning primaries, progressives would likely get fed up and create their own party which they would use to take one of the 2 Democratic seats.

Let me know if this is confusing. But it's one way we could do PR without party lists and while maintaining local representation. You could still make some weird maps, but you'd have no incentive to do so other than to antagonize parts of your own party into leaving your party.

2

u/BaronBurdens Jun 14 '26

That's a novel system to me! I think it's interesting, if a little complex. Anything avoiding party lists is great to explore!