Originally Posted By tiggertoo As anyone who has studied political science or civics knows, as a body, the House of Representative was designed by the Framers to be, as close as possible, democratically reflective of citizenry. Whereas, the Senate body was supposed to be less reflective---a moderating factor, less susceptible to the public fervor. As November 8th dawned, the overall tally of votes for House members read 53,952,240 votes for Democrat representatives and 53,402,643 for Republican representatives. Thus, the Democrats boasted approximately 500,000 more votes for House members than Republicans. You would think this would roughly reflect the seat distribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Following the election, the House of Representative constituted 233 Republican and 193 Democrat seats. So it seems that in a legislative body designed to reflect the national populace, it fails miserably. And we know the reason why---partisan gerrymandering. So much for Speaker Boehner Republican mandate. I’m baffled that this issue is so unknown and/or ignored by most Americans. It’s quite disconcerting that boundaries are created by partisans whose primary goal is to carve up the state with the primary goal of trying to create as many moderate majority seats for their own party, and pack the other party’s members into few districts, thus actualizing a majority seat distribution when the public sentiment is otherwise. It might help incumbents, as only 1 in 10 seats remain competitive, which is why members from both support it. And for that reason, it is doubtful they would enact legislation themselves. But it’s still woefully anti-democratic. It amazes me that most Americans, many of whom view their vote as sacred, aren’t concerned. My ideal solution would be to drop single member districts altogether, and convert to multi-member district system like proportionally representative (with moderate thresholds). It would be much more reflective of the overall electorate and give minority parties representation (that should make Ron Paul and Nader folks happy). But I don’t think most Americans would be up for that. There is too much “everything America does is always better anything anyone else does” attitude silliness out there. Regardless, it’s about time we turn the House back into the popular, democratic body it was designed to be by Madison---especially as polarization continues to paralyze our legislature. Note that I’m not merely saying this due to my distaste for radical conservatism. Even as a Republican, I thought what Tom Delay did in Texas in the 1990s was snakelike. But at least the two sides continued to together with some semblance of bipartisanship which moderated the dichotomous effect. That reality no longer exists. Most politicians won’t call for redistricting reform on their own accord. We must demand it
Originally Posted By tiggertoo BTW, if anyone says, we are a republic, not a democracy, I'll beat you with a stick. We are not a DIRECT democracy, but still a democracy couched in the framework of a federal republic. There are numerous forms of democracy (and republics for that matter).
