Shouldn't all voters' votes matter?
Even if a third party's platform better coincides with the opinions of many voters, most U.S. voters will not ”squander” their vote, but they rather choose what they consider to be the lesser of two evils, (i.e. between the Democrat or Republican) candidate. In regard to many issues they consider to be of importance, an overwhelming majority of U.S. voters' viewpoints substantially differ from those of their congressional representatives.

I advocate that although only winning candidates are designated their districts' congressional representative, each candidate should be empowered with a portion of a single vote, (i.e. a weighted vote) within the U.S. House of Representatives. The weighted portion is the portion the candidate's votes, among all votes cast for electing the district's congressional representative.

Only those designated as their congressional districts' representative, may vote on any matter brought to a vote within the U.S. House of Representatives.

All congressional representative candidates may temporarily register their assigning of all their weighted vote to any district's representative. The assignment must be for specified dates or topics to be voted upon.

All congressional representative candidates may assign their vote to multiple district representatives, but not for the same dates or the same topics.

All congressional representative candidates at any time may register their rescinding of their assignment to any district's representative, (but not for votes previously exercised).

Respectfully, Supposn

Maybe it's because I suffer from Low-IQ Syndrome, but I haven't a clue what you are proposing here.

So if I got this right, let's say in a certain district the Republican get 57% of the vote, the Democrat 40%, and an Independent 3%. While only the Republican goes to Congress and is an actual Representative, they only have 0.57 votes there. The losing Democratic candidate can give their 0.40 votes away to any Representative in the entire House, and the Independent candidate their 0.03 votes as well.

This would mean that every candidate who makes it on the ballot gets votes or proxy votes in the House. Seems like a great way to create a mess that will slow everything down. And I don't think it solves much either.

Ganstaman, currently within the majority of congressional districts, upon many, if not the majority of issues, many, if not the majority of voters' votes do not matter.

The concept has each congressional district representative MORE fully answerable to their voters even if candidate received only 1% of the votes cast, it doesn't increase the numbers of congressional representatives, and everyone's vote has REAL political consequences.
Respectfully, Supposn

Thanks, ganstaman.

If we used that scheme you would have a lot of people running who don't want to actually do the job, but can get some voting power that they can then sell or leverage in some way. It would be a disaster.

I'm sure the Dems would be delighted that they beat Herschel Walker, but Walker still has a .4 vote. Similarly, I'm sure the GOP would be really pleased that Fetterman gets his .4 vote even if Dr. Oz wins.

Campfirewest, power and prestige have always been among the major human motivators. What you described has always been occurring in the USA and elsewhere throughout the world.
Respectfully, Supposn

Awarding any share of political influence to people just by virtue of having been on a ballot is a terrible idea. There may be very good reasons a given candidate received only 1% of the vote. You want to give 26% voting power to Arthur Jones in IL-3?

But there are more problems than that - namely, how do you hold accountable a person when they weren't even elected to the office? How do you control who they award that influence to, and in turn is that person even remotely in touch with the needs of your constituency? Then how is the winning representative accountable to anyone beyond those that voted for them (why should they)? And possibly the worst part, you are ensuring that a percentage of your district's voice in the House is being transferred out of district.

Sprinkles are for winners.

Minirra, We award political influence to candidates to the extent that they were awarded votes. But if you’re a Republican residing in a blue congressional district, shouldn’t your vote matter? Within this proposal, votes cast for every candidate would have some political consequences. But if congressional representatives have lesser voter support within their own district, their influence in the House of Representatives is reduced.

There are Republicans that are opposed to government intruding with families considering if they can afford another child. There are Democrats that are opposed to labor unions. You may vote for a minority candidate that’s not the winner within your district. But that candidate can assign the portion of your district’s votes he was awarded to support your views within another district.

Currently, lobbyist can buy off Republicans and the Democrats. Your representative considers if he serves his campaign contributors, can he still be re-elected?
Under this proposal, representatives need also consider what portion of their house vote they may lose, if they serve their campaign contributor; additionally, representatives that lost greater portions of their house vote, are of lesser value to lobbyists.
Under this proposal, Gerrymandering would be of much lesser advantage to any political party.
Respectfully, Supposn

Op, while I may not agree with all the details of your proposal, I agree with the idea that there is a problem of voters not being represented in our current system. The system was set up in the 1700s, at a time where it took weeks or months for information to travel. With instant communication there is no reason we should be limited to 100 senators and 435 representatives. I would argue that there should be a system where there are no representatives at all for the vast majority of matters. At the very least we should have 100x the number of representatives we currently have.

There's no question the system is imperfect but this isn't a solution. Today, whether I may have voted for her or not, I have the option to pick up the phone or open my email and reach out to my representative. Not someone with 58% of my representation with the rest scattered among 3 others, who have zero accountability to me and may be worse than any one that was on our ballot, and who may be completely out of touch with the wants and needs of our district. In my case that would mean 42% of our voting power is being held by parties outside of the state entirely since we only have one district.

I'm sorry but the reality of voting is that it's done in the aggregate and you're going to lose elections sometimes, the onus is on the electorate to inform themselves and support the candidates that represent them - the fact that a lot of people are terrible at that is the problem, not how the pie is divided up. More than that, you probably already have tons of down-ballot people representing you to some degree, voting isn't just for the House and Senate.

And to answer your question, if you're a Republican in a blue congressional district, your vote DOES matter. You may not win the election, but it still (again in the aggregate) communicates to some degree that there is some opposition to the winner, and the more people doing that the more future candidates have to recognize that it's not a gimmie. Even in a "safe" blue area like the one I live in you're still talking about a district that until about 10 years ago had a 9-term Republican in office. I would also argue that if you were to find yourself somewhere that's irreparably inconsistent with your values & priorities, whatever they are, you might consider relocating. I've lived in several some very red and very blue, and I would not expect to turn the tides with my vote in those.

But last - consider the impact of suddenly turning 40% of a blue area's voting power red, or shifting 40% of some Bible Belt area blue. If you want complete chaos that's a pretty good way to get there. Sorry man, it's just a terrible concept.

Minirra, zero accountability? Within this proposal:
Every vote within your district was cast by a registered voter residing in your congressional district.
They voted for candidates complying with all of the federal your state’s and district's reguirements of a candidate to be a U.S. Congressional Representative for your district.

Prior to the winning candidate being sworn in as your districts’ congressional representative, all candidates, (including the winning candidate), are sworn in by an oath very similar, if not exactly the same oath as the congressional representative’s oath.
That’s a requirement for the accepting the responsibilities as being among the candidates competing for the office of representative. The office of candidate entitles the candidate to a portion of a single House of Representatives’ votes. A candidate can temporarily assign their portion to any currently sitting congressional representative.
Unlike a congressional representative, a candidate cannot directly vote within House of Representatives procedures. I don’t believe anyone is even entitled to step uninvited, on the “House’s floor”.

The purpose of this proposal, (its best feature) is to provide possible representation somewhere within the U.S. House of representatives, for all of the voters that did not cast their vote for their current representative, and/or disagree with their representative on one or more significant issues.
Respectfully, Supposn

Minirra, zero accountability? Within this proposal:
Every vote within your district was cast by a registered voter residing in your congressional district.
They voted for candidates complying with all of the federal your state’s and district's requirements of a candidate to be a U.S. Congressional Representative for your district.
To retain the entitlements of a candidate for the Congressional House of Representatives, (which in itself is an office), the candidate would comply with almost all that’s required of a representative. For example, there’s no need for a candidate to go to Washington D.C., but just as a representative, the candidate would be required to maintain residence within the state of your district.
Consider that on many individual issues. A good proportion of those that voted for their current representative, disagreed with the opinions of the person they voted for. But they didn’t vote for a 3d party that was not electable, and thus their opinions in these matters didn’t matter. Combined with those that didn’t vote for their district’s representatives, for more or less than the majority of voters in every congressional district, their opinions and votes don’t really have any political consequences. Respectfully, Supposn

OP let me know which red state you live in

Bundy, I reside in NJ. I disagree with both major parties in regard to some issues that I consider of substantial importance. Respectfully, Supposn

What I'm understanding he's saying is that a congressman's vote would only be worth the percentage of votes he won. So if Matt won 80% of his district votes and Paul won 60%, Matt's vote would be more effective when enacting legislation.

In my view, such a system would have some advantages but is still inferior to ranked-choice voting. I suppose they could be combined...

C double, the purpose of proposed proportional voting within the U.S. House of Representatives, would enable every vote cast in the election for a U.S. congressional district’s representative would have political consequences if the voter’s choice received no less than 1% of the district’s votes. Every vote would effectively count.

Rank voting proposal’s purpose is to require elected U.S. Congressional District’s Representatives to have received more than half of the votes cast in that district’s election.
I consider both proposals would be net beneficial to our nation.

But within both proposals’ there’s only a single U.S. congressional representative for each district, without proportional voting within the U.S. House of Representatives, every vote does not have political consequences, and those who voted for others and are opposed to their district’s elected representative, are represented on a manner contrary to their political opinions; (i.e. their votes didn’t effectively count).
Yes, the two proposals do not contradict each other. they could both be enacted and be net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn

Minirra, C double, and ganstaman, the two different proposals, Rank voting within congressional districts’ elections, and proportional voting within the U.S. House of Representatives, have different and non- contradictory purposes and they’d both be net beneficial to our nation.

Both proposals would shift some influence and power now almost exclusively held by our major parties. When all voters’ votes have political consequences, the votes and opinions of minority voters and minority parties are granted some consideration.
I don’t know if such changes would increase the cost of “buying votes”, but they certainly wouldn’t reduce the cost of political lobbyists. Respectfully, Supposn

USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

In my less than humble opinion, the number of members representing each individual state within the United States' House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Electoral College were among the first constitutional convention's compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states.
Whatever is proposed to replace the U.S. Electoral College, should be required to continue respecting our historic compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states. For that reason, the office of U.S. President shouldn't be determined by just the simple majority of our nation's voters. Respectfully, Supposn

In case you misplaced it, you left your election reform thread here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...atter-1813598/

Also, we know who wrote your posts, because your name is next to each of them. Respectfully, Bob

Metod Tinuviel, a key advantage of the proposed proportional voting within House of Representative procedures is, (although within every congressional district, every voter's vote will then actually have political consequences, the proposal doesn't increase the House's numbers of members. (We now have in excess of 400 Congressional representatives.
Upon any controversial political issue, almost, (if not the majority) of U.S. voter's opinions aren't political consequential;(their votes don't really matter). Respectfully, Supposn

Minirra, a truly democratic republic nation enables all their citizens, (proportional to their nation's populations), to fully affect their national policies.
To extents of governments denying unpopular opinions and viewpoints to be heard, read, or fully considered, those are more authoritarian and less democratic governments. All United States of America's voters' votes do not effectively matter. Respectfully, Supposn

It's worth remembering that around ten million us citizens have no representation in it's government by virtue of living in DC, Puerto Rico, or outside it's borders.

That's not true.