Add this to the pile of reasons why one of the main reforms we need is to ditch single seat first past the post districting.
This wouldn’t be so existential if, for example, getting 1 more vote than your opponent didn’t yield you 100% of the power.
Scenario A. Three districts. Majority purple, minority green, across them.
District 1 46p 54g
District 2 46p 54g
District 3 90p 10g
Reasonably these are all fairly safe seats. Even the close races are 8 points (aka greater than even the ‘wave’ margin of last election). Yet, clearly, this does not represent the will of the people.
Scenario 2. Multi seat districting for 3 seats.
Purple gets two reps to greens 1. And everyone in that district has someone representing them. There is no green voter in the overwhelmingly purple district who never has a representative for them, and there is no narrow minority who is constantly overruled in two districts. Everyone has a vote that matters.
That, plus ranked choice transferable votes, like Maine implemented, are vital changes we need.
Think how much less acrimonious things are when people don’t feel they have a voice suddenly do. It does cut both ways, conservatives living in Chicago could see representation as well as liberals in Louisiana. And it would tend to see more moderates I think. A GOP rep from Chicago couldn’t play the Tea Party line like one in Kansas. And we’ve seen how candidates in West Virginia or Missouri wouldn’t be the kind of Dems that win in California.
But our system of representation is untenable in the long term. Letting the politicians chose their voters in our system leads to the polarization and resentment over lack of representation we see.