|
[QUOTE=Warfish;4255239]An idea designed specificly to re-elected gerimandered district perma-politicians?
And I have to ask.....65% of the electorate, or 65% of actual voters? Thats a big difference.[/QUOTE]
65% of actual voters. Non-voters deserve the representation they get.
And even in gerrymandered districts, there is usually better than 35% of the opposing party. Check out the House District map from 2010: most election wins are with a lot less than 65% of the electorate.
Districts with more:
Alaska,
22 districts in Texas (guess which party won those :D),
1 district in OK,
3 in Arizona,
23 in Cali (again, guess which party :D)
2 in Oregon
2 in Washington
1 in Idaho
2 in Utah
Wyoming
3 in Colorado
2 in Nebraska
1 in Kansas
1 in Minnesota
2 in Iowa
5 in Missouri
1 in Arkansas
3 in Louisiana
1 in Mississippi
3 in Wisconsin
5 in Michigan
10 in Illinois
4 in Kentucky
2 in Indiana
5 in Tennessee
2 in Alabama
13 in Florida
7 in Georgia
6 in Ohio
1 in West Virginia
2 in Virginia
1 in South Carolina
5 in North Carolina
3 in Maryland
6 in NJ
7 in Pennsylvania
14 in NY
1 in Connecticut
2 in Massachusetts
1 in Hawaii
That's 177 out of 435 - less than half (though still more than I expected). Bump the number to 70% and that drops more.
The point is, there are ways to allow voters to keep the really good ones who've built broad satisfaction from the people they represent while term limiting the ones who don't
|