jb2000

Much of the talk about Third Parties revolves around the race for President. Let's face it, even with equal access, the potential for a Third Party President is remote. Even in pluralistic democracies around the world, the Head of Government position is usually contested between only the two main parties (or held by the dominant one). The exceptions are usually young democracies where the parties haven't stabilized yet or strange cases of bizarre events.

What is realistic however, is representation in the US Congress. About 1-3% of votes cast for US Rep are cast for Libertarian candidates (perhaps a Libertarian expert can help me verify or narrow down that figure). This ideally should mean about 10 seats in the House, on a percentage basis. Of course, they have none though. I'm no Libertarian, but still this is not right.

I am proposing a hybrid system of appointing House Representatives that would make the composition of the House reflective of the nationwide breakdown of votes for Representative:

- Of the 435 Representative seats, a small number (20?) are reserved as At-Large seats. The remainder are delegated to the states as normal and sub-divided into Congressional Districts. The impact to states would be about the same as a normal census cycle, where districts are re-drawn. For states like Texas, who seem to not have a problem with re-districting on a whim, this should pose no problem at all.

- Election of the 415 Districts proceeds as normal, with no change in format for candidates or voters.

- Upon completion of vote-counting, the total votes cast in all House races are tallied by party. This is calculated out to determine how many seats each party is entitled to, and the 20 at-large seats are then awarded to the parties as appropriate to balance the overall seats to match the election returns.

- Candidates who ran for US House but did not win their District election are eligible for these at-large seats, and are awarded on the basis of votes cast for them in their district. For example, let's say that Party A had five at-large seats awarded to them, the five candidates who had the most votes for them in their district elections, but did not win their district election, would be appointed to the seats.

I see this system as having several benefits as a way of improving our representation at the Federal level:

1) No change in the process of District elections means that our American traditions of voting for individiuals remains, and that those that best serve their districts will still see the greatest support.

2) Parties will be encouraged to compete more broadly to serve districts, as opposed to the kind of 'safe seat' approach that is currently in vogue.

3) This is not unlike the system already in use by many party precinct and distict conventions to select delegates to their state convention and such.

4) The structured method of assigning at-large seats doesn't open the door to party or other corruption of the assingments. The quantities are mathematically determined, and the order of appointment based on votes cast in district elections.

I am aware that obviously there will need to be an Amendment to the Constitution to enact these procedural changes, but other than that, I am eager to hear input on people's perceptions, comments, objections, etc. on this one.

This is my first thread start, so forgive me if it is too heavy.