Proportional Representation Is the Solution to Gerrymanderings
11th August 2025
No, it’s not. Proportional representation would be unconstitutional in the U.S., because it requires people to vote for a ‘party list’, and the party in question then determines who gets seats and who does not. This is historically seen as corruption in the U.S., and the reason why we now have a series of primary elections to choose party candidates. The constitution knows nothing of parties, and requires individual candidates running for office. (Indeed, read the Federalist papers and what they have to say about political parties, which the Founders termed ‘faction’–and that was not meant as a compliment.)
Proportional representation is what has ensured a multitude of splinter parties in most European countries, as a result of which most European countries have fragile ruling coalitions that break if you breathe on them hard, which in turn puts power firmly in the hands of their equivalent of the Deep State. (Proportional representation is what allowed the Nazis to form a government in Germany in 1933, with results as we saw them.) The problem of a multitude of splinter parties has debilitated even Britain, which has the same ‘first past the post’ system that the U.S. uses (although the individual states often have rules about run-off elections to ensure that the winning candidate has some sort of majority of the votrs cast, if not the total votes available).
Democrats, being ‘democrats’, would love a proportional system, even though it would destroy them.