From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:46:27 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

Just imagine what if seats in the US house were assigned proportionally >>with a state-wide electoral district instead of allowing redistricting
wars to influence the outcome. You could even employ open lists so that >>people could even vote for candidates and not just lists!

But this is the country that still doesn't have direct popular vote for >>federal president and vice-president.

And never will.

We are /not/ a parliamentary democracy, where "winner takes all" is
the rule.

Well, OK, the Republicans currently believe in "winner takes all" but
they, as has been usual the past 2-3 decades, aren't doing much.

Sadly, the Democrats are drinking the same koolaide and coming to
believe in "winner takes all" as well.

We in Canada have that on our municipal elections but not on federal
or provincial where the system is 'first past the post' in nearly all
cases.

At one time British Columbia had several 2 member ridings where the
top two finishers were elected which may or may not be from the same
party. My main memory of this was from my grade 7 class where a boy
who was part of my social circle's Dad was a psychiatrist who served
two terms in the provincial parliament both from a 2 member riding.

Not sure when this system was ended but all seats are one member per
district now and have been for at least 20 years.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 10 May 2026 20:11:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:46:27 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

Just imagine what if seats in the US house were assigned proportionally >>>with a state-wide electoral district instead of allowing redistricting >>>wars to influence the outcome. You could even employ open lists so that >>>people could even vote for candidates and not just lists!

But this is the country that still doesn't have direct popular vote for >>>federal president and vice-president.

And never will.

We are /not/ a parliamentary democracy, where "winner takes all" is
the rule.

Well, OK, the Republicans currently believe in "winner takes all" but
they, as has been usual the past 2-3 decades, aren't doing much.

Sadly, the Democrats are drinking the same koolaide and coming to
believe in "winner takes all" as well.

We in Canada have that on our municipal elections but not on federal
or provincial where the system is 'first past the post' in nearly all
cases.

At one time British Columbia had several 2 member ridings where the
top two finishers were elected which may or may not be from the same
party. My main memory of this was from my grade 7 class where a boy
who was part of my social circle's Dad was a psychiatrist who served
two terms in the provincial parliament both from a 2 member riding.

Not sure when this system was ended but all seats are one member per
district now and have been for at least 20 years.

I was referring to the fact that, if A gets in, industries are
nationalized and, if B gets in later, then they are de-nationalized.
IOW, the parties who win expect to have everything their own way. What
is the key to American politics, compromise solutions everybody is
happy with, is unknown. Sadly, it is mostly unknown in American
politics as well nowadays.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2