Would you support Proportional Representation for US Congressional Elections?

More than other places, US Legislators tend to represent their constituent's views, at least to enough of an extent that those people elect them. Proportional Representation largely disregards local representation, but this is a key feature of American politics due to the size of the country. I prefer the Alternative Ballot.

 

I prefer that we move to a proportional voting system for USA Capitol Hill Representatives. I don't like gerrymandering and we must get more constituents heard; that will encourage more people to vote.

 

yay for straw men!

First, it is obscure. Not to law students, but to people in general, yeah. It didn't make this website's top lankmark cases (a list of 17)

Second, 85% of Americans don't know who the chief justice is, and barely one in three can name all three branches of government - and you think Reynolds v Sims is well known?

oh, the "history will be on my side" inevitablism. You should talk to Johnny-C. As for me personally, I don't care much for such shallow-minded substitutes for actual reasoning. btw, you haven't shown that anyone is actually disenfranchised.

Outside voices are marginalized because the number of people who care are marginal. It's not the system that does that, you're whining about the wrong thing. Even European parties have the same thing. They form coalitions of separate parties and ideologies, and tiny parties left out of any coalition are marginal and treated as marginal. You should really stop and think about our system - it already is a coalition system. Our parties aren't as narrow as people like to suggest, there is a world of difference between the average Republican in the South, the northeast, and in the west (also a big difference in Texas ). There is a world of difference between your average Democrat in the South, the North, and the West.

You seem like you actually follow it closely - I'd encourage you to pay closer attention to the regional aspect of American politics, because it's actually stronger than the party aspect. It's why in the South you have many Democrats who oppose abortion and gay marriage, in the west you have many Democrats who favor gun rights. In the west you even have a lot of Republicans who are okay with gay marriage and who favor legalization of pot. And in the North, you have a lot of Republicans who are in favor of gay marriage and are pro-choice. Because our politics are more regional than you think. And that's how we vote, regionally. If you stop and read the Constitution, you'll find that elected representatives shall come from the states. You want to talk about Framers? You have to deal with your opposition to the very basis of the union they established before you jump up and say they're on your side.

You already tried that stream, and I already showed you how idiotic and baseless it really is, but whatever, baseless and idiotic is the best you've got, by all means do continue.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." - Article I, Section II

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." - Article I, Section III

We're not the United Provinces, we're the United States. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Except no view is actually being suppressed. Look, I'm a Libertarian, what you're proposing would be better for the Libertarian party/ideology, but it runs contrary to the very basis of our union. It is the States that elect.

To be clear, are you proposing that the Senate remain the same?

pretty much. Your previous 'facts' and 'interpretation' are still bs.

... not sure if you realize this, but the Framers wrote the Constitution, and it runs dead contrary to what you say. Also, again, calling bs. You continue to make this pathetic appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, w/o even establishing the authority.

Read the Constitution, kid. Both were to come from the separate states, the difference being that the states would be represented equally in the Senate, and the states would be represented according to population in the House. This wasn't a check on the "raucous House", it was check between two proposals among the states for how the Congress should be set up. The larger states wanted a Congress that would be based on population (thereby giving the larger states more power), the smaller states wanted a Congress where states were represented equally (giving the small states a check against the influence of large states). The compromise was to have one house of roughly each proposal. That way the small states couldn't be bullied by large states (protected by their representation in the Senate), and the large states couldn't be pushed around by small states (protected by their representation in the House). I believe these were the New York and Delaware proposals, but it's been a long time so I'm fuzzy on which states championed which.

Your belief - fine, because as is it's just that and nothing more.

As far as first past the post leading to a two party system - yeah, it usually does and you shouldn't need a political scientist to tell you that (this is like those tests that find that "beards are masculine" and stupid sh*t like that). The point is moot as far as representation, because even in a more European style system you have coalitions of parties - and that's already what we have in a two party system. We have coalitions of parties. The Democrats and Republicans are coalitions of vastly different ideologies, how can you not see this?

- - - Updated - - -

^This

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to get.

 

I very much disagree with you that we have a coalition within the two political parties.(Infact, is it even possible?) As an example, look at the GOP. The worst decision the Tea Party ever made, was aligning itself with the GOP. And yet, it might've been seen as an economic necessity for the party. The GOP alienated the Tea Party almost immediately(which doesn't fit the Liberal model of recent GOP actions being "Tea Party" oriented, hah what a laugh) and told those "rookie" Senators and State Representatives "This is how we do things"

Coalition? If you'd like to call it the weakest and most irrelevant Coalition of all time, sure. As a personal example(It'd be called an anecdote but given how many Americans feel the same on some level, I think it bares fruit). I supported the Revolution in 2008.(The Revolution that brought Obama into power).

Back then, I was but a 16 year old whose feet was just getting wet politically. But I knew that I didn't support Crony Politics, which meant the Neo-Cons were a no go. And the President captivated me as I thought he may have been a Populist. (A populist IMO is the only true representative of his people). And Hillary Clinton's a Neo-Con dressed in democratic clothing. She only proved that her in her official government capacity. How could Liberals rally around her, I've no idea.

But at the time, I spoke with a Clinton Supporter at school. I calmly made my argument for the President and the Clinton Supporter summarily dismissed me with this. "You can't vote, so your opinion is irrelevant".

Do you still want to tell me there's some kind of coalition within our country, within our "democracy"? There isn't even a coalition within the Parties themselves!

After that Revolution, and after the consequent betrayal of former policy positions(as well as the flat out inactivity of others. Namely, going after the banks and corporations) it was clear to me that my heart could also no longer align with the Democrats.

There's no coalition there, there's no alliance there. They are Americans with a non-American objective. We have a misunderstanding of the term 'Statist'. We would LOVE a statist, compared to what exists now, which could be identified as a 'partyist'. Name a single representative here that cares for the State in its fullest term: The United States of America.

Or better yet, is there State Representation in the "U.S" Senate? How can you represent Pennsylvania, in a National Board? Or perhaps more notably Oklahoma or something. You can't. For the agenda is National Politics(insofar as those political incompetents actually have national interests). It's actually a Personal Agenda.

There are 535 traitors in the U.S masquerading as "political leaders", who once every 2-4 years campaign for their relevancy and we say "yes" due to indoctrination about how relevant they are. That, it's our "duty" to vote.

(This point came up on an alternative political forum). It's not our DUTY to vote, it's our duty to best serve the Nation in whatever capacity that may be(Economically, or educationally or militarily) and thereby it serves ourselves.

There's nothing about voting that strengthens the State, the State of our Union or most importantly ourselves.

The only way you could be convinced otherwise in this sham of a system, is to convince yourself that you somehow lean a "political way"(IE: Democratic or Republican). But the vast majority of this country isn't truly politically educated in the truest sense. That is to say, most Americans don't have a view that isn't spoonfed to them by the media.

And the media(especially in its condensed form today) is the least credible place to actually obtain political knowledge.

Even in spite of my mistake(of supporting the President), I would still say that a child whose not convinced of any political leaning is significantly smarter than the
voting population of adults.

This is because the child is a free thinker, the political leaning it has created, it has created purely on its own whims, of what it would like to see. The child's mind is best for political learning. A child can better understand the state of affairs today, than an adult.

An adult is politically incapable of changing, and thereby it's also politically incapable of thinking. This country is where it's at, because the adults in this country are both politically unaware and incapable of change.

And I swear to my last breath, that my political awareness shall never change with my age. But I will continue to grow as a Centrist-Right Independent. The 535 traitors in our country can just shove it up themselves. Should a third party ever succeed in waking up the American Masses, I'll gladly either join that revolution or lead it myself.

 

If you want proportional representation such as what was in the original Constitution, you'll need to get rid of the cap on the size of the House of Representatives which means repeal of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

 

Is the United States not supposed to be a representative democracy?

We are a country of over three hundred million people. You cannot tell me with a straight face that everyone is represented in a system with only two realistic choices for government. It is so improbable as to be rendered improbable.

The next-most populous country on Earth is Indonesia, who, while they have a bit over two-thirds of our population, in their lower house, have nine political parties. Other PR countries have even more. Brazil's lower house is a freakin' Rainbow Coalition every time.

ROFL. Seventeen cases? Just how long has the Supreme Court been around? I didn't see Furman, Gregg, Atkins, Brady, Roper, Schenck, New York Times v. United States, Engel, or numerous others mentioned on that list. Really surprised about Furman not being on there, reversing almost a decades of no capital punishment in the country and all.

I'd figure if there was a list of seventeen Fourteenth Amendment cases, Reynolds would be on that list.

That seems to me like it's more a failure of the American education system to impart its students with proper civics education or a failure of the people to give more of a rat's ass about some backwoods duck-call manufacturer or who the next American Idol than who is running their country.

Washington warned the country in his farewell address.

The trend toward platform partisanship goes back to the end of the New Deal coalition. Fissures started with Kennedy supporting integration of schools and continued throughout the 60s and 70s until Carter put a firm end to the backhanded attempts at preserving the last vestiges of segregation in the South. Carter's ostracizing of the Conservative Democrats led directly to the formation of the Moral Majority and the polar shift. Reagan coming along from California, where he had been a relatively popular Governor, contributed to the landslide defeat of Carter in 1980.

Over a million votes for libertarian candidates in 2012 is "marginal"?

European systems are wholly different from our own. Even in a D'Hondt system, more viewpoints are represented than in our system.

Before the 80s, the parties were broad. However, since then, we have seen the party platforms narrow considerably. We now see moderates ostracized. Look at how many people claim McCain is a RINO despite his supporting his party 88% of the time per the Washington Post http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/members/

American politics is at the tail-end of a shift from a region-centric system to a platform-centric system. This shift happened concurrently with the shift from conservatives being Democrats to their being Republicans. Many if not most of those Southern Democrats have switched party allegiance. This trend is most notably visible in Mississippi where the Democratic Party of that state has hemorrhaged members who switched to the Republican Party.

You're not fully understanding my idea. Come on, man, you should know I'm a straight-shooter.

Are you denying that there is a problem with Congress flirting with a single-digit approval rating?

I believe there is.

Now that there has been a problem discovered, the process of solving that problem must then begin.

Being that the approval rating is that low, voting out the incumbents in favor of the other party's choice will only lead to the problem persisting into the next Congress.

You can look to disestablish the parties. That runs into a whole host of problems. A liberal democracy, by its very nature, cannot ban a political party from organizing, nor can it ban a political party from getting too big. Furthermore, even if the parties were disestablished, the nature of the first-past-the-post system would see exactly two parties take their place in the end.

The way around that is to establish a PR system, which, by its nature, will allow for smaller parties to gain a foothold in the government.

The bolded text means that the Representatives must be elected by popular vote, while the underlined portion means that the suffrage for the voters for the House seats in each state are equal to the qualifications for voters in that state's legislative house with the most delegates.

I wouldn't have PR for the Senate, under it's current system, it'd be very difficult to wrench the control of the Senate from the two parties.

That is a meaningless statement. Several federations are comprised of provinces. Secondly, the Dutch Republic used First-Past-The-Post system as well, primarily because the first PR system for a legislature's apportionment wasn't devised until almost a century after the Dutch Republic ceased to be.

As I pointed out, the vague nature of the Constitution does not exclude PR. I had actually figured this system would need an Amendment, but by the open nature of the Constitution and the lack within it of a provision banning such a system from being enacted.

A PR system would be more easily considered Constitutional than the NPV Compact currently working its way around the State Legislatures.

Furthermore, aren't we supposed to be a union with a government by the people, of the people, and for the people? How can a system that furthers that goal be contrary to those principles?

By the nature of the small size of the Senate, it would have to remain the same.

You're forgetting that the Senate was originally intended to be selected by the State Legislatures. The Framers did not want to surrender the country to the uneducated populace at the time, so they diluted the power the common people had. The House was directly elected by the people, and thus accountable to the People, that is why the House of Representatives is called the People's House. The Framers wanted to make sure more learned men had a veto power though, so they set Congress up like the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Senate was analogous to the House of Lords.

Under the original intention of the Constitution, the Presidency was supposed to be weaker than Congress, and for a time it was. The precise time when the Presidency became stronger than Congress is uncertain, but it was likely during the time of Lincoln when, in time of war, he didn't have the time to wait for Congressional debate if the Union were to survive. Plus, it's worth noting who were the three most-noted statesmen of the first half of the 19th Century? Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun, three members of Congress. I believe Webster was also, at one time, considered the most powerful man in the country.

http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/gov2126/files/person_tabellini_electoral_rules_and_corruption.pdf << Paper from Harvard that points to accountability being a main factor in lowering corruption. PR systems are more accountable than two-party systems by the nature that the elected members of a PR system are more easily defeated in an election because gerrymandering loses effectiveness with a PR system.

It's what we had in the first five party systems. The sixth party system that we've seen coalesce in the past decade has seen the coalition parties diminish. Now, instead of allied partisans, we have extremists that are whining about the moderates and the moderates are whining about the extremists. The GOP is on the verge of an intraparty civil war.

The system I'm working on developing isn't going to abandon the local character of the districts. In fact, the proposal I have been working on would make the districts smaller.

My proposal relies first and foremost on the expansion of the House of Representatives. Instead of the system currently in use, the system would see each state receive one Representative for every 250,000 citizens in that state for the previous census. From that number, states would be given additional representatives until no Representative has a constituency larger than 250,000 citizens. For some states, that may mean one extra representative, others may need as many as three or four. I forget where I put the math I did a few weeks back, but it would see the House grow to the size of about 1,290.

Owing to the fact that we are going from a two-party system to a multiparty system, the switch would not be immediate. Most people would still vote for the two major parties. Under my idea, the Democrats and Republicans would have had all but 14 or 15 seats in a legislature of over 1200 members. Each of those fourteen or fifteen Congresspersons would have to impress their districts' constituencies if they wanted to be reelected. That would require them to listen to all of their constituents. That's because this system is sort of two races. The first race is between the different parties for seats. The second race is within each party because the higher a candidate's percentage of first-place votes the higher they are on the list of candidates. The higher they are on the party list, the more likely they are to be seated.

Should be easy enough if a cohesive-enough argument can be made to the Supreme Court that Reynolds applies to the Federal Government.

 

yep, everyone is represented. The difference, clear as day, that you're somehow unwilling to acknowledge, is that everyone is regionally represented. You're thinking along ideology. As I've already stated, representation is supposed to be regional, not ideological.

I already said it's obscure to anyone who isn't a law student (or a wannabe) - so you move from law student (or a wannabe) to a puerile law student (or a wannabe)?

This isn't even key to your argument. The point is about referencing obscure things and expected everyone to know about it - don't be f***ing stupid, people that aren't law students or poli-sci majors or w/e wouldn't know about dozens and dozens of key cases, which you somehow expect people to.

Again, you don't need to argue every point - you just look dumber when you can't cede a point, esp. one that isn't even a key to your argument. It's an obscure case, except to law students, poli sci majors and the type. So if you're not even going to provide a link to a claim, at least provide a summary - there's no need for that puerile clinging.

And Eisenhower warned the country in his farewell address too! yay for moot points!

Again, moot point. Do you even read what you're responding to? I said that that "history will be on my side" is stupid and pointless (let alone unbased), and that you haven't shown how anyone today is disenfranchised by our system... and you haven't. So, I take that as you've ceded the point that no one is disenfranchised today by our system.

Yeah, less than a single percent of the population is marginal.

Again, you've failed to recognize points made. As I've already said, the two parties aren't hives with one mind, they are coalitions. In the big picture, it's effectually little different from the European system, because a Republican representative in Maine, Wyoming, Utah, and Alabama are (generally speaking) very different and have largely differing views on a plethora of issues, but their views are close enough that they fall under the same coalition.

No, it's not. It fluctuates back and forth in how regional parties are, but the regional parties that allow for more difference almost always win. The major Democratic victories in 2008 can be largely credited to their openness to conservative Democrats, but the party's subsequent 'purification' only made the 2010 Republican victories bigger.

Do you even read what you're responding to? This is now the third post I've had to tell you that low Congressional approval is not a reflection of dissatisfaction with the system, or a desire for what you propose. You have no basis for that claim. As I've already said, it's just as baseless and ludicrous as if I were to say that our low Congressional approval is because the people want a monarchy.

No, it doesn't. You should really read up on your history, this is stuff you should have gotten in an American history survey course, but wikipedia should suffice. States still set who could vote, and it was NOT a popular vote.

So you're fine with regional representation in the Senate but not in the House? That's at least a better proposal, and a bicameral system with state representation in one house and ideological representation in the second would be interesting.

No, it's not. We're a union of states, which is why we have regional representation from the states. duh What you want to do is rob the states of their own representation, because you don't see us as a union of states but as one country with 50 provinces.

You're still missing that we're a union of states, and in our Congress it is the states that are represented. That's why it's regional. duh

Our Constitution does prohibit forcing PR on any state, it leaves state representation up to the state, but not how representatives are elected (at least not entirely). If states wish to elect within the state using your system that's fine, but it's the state decision - and you'd still be left with the libertarian party having no reps.

... Do you really not read anything you respond to? If I were to even bother making a real response to this part of your post, I'd say this:

"Read the Constitution, kid. Both were to come from the separate states, the difference being that the states would be represented equally in the Senate, and the states would be represented according to population in the House. This wasn't a check on the "raucous House", it was check between two proposals among the states for how the Congress should be set up. The larger states wanted a Congress that would be based on population (thereby giving the larger states more power), the smaller states wanted a Congress where states were represented equally (giving the small states a check against the influence of large states). The compromise was to have one house of roughly each proposal. That way the small states couldn't be bullied by large states (protected by their representation in the Senate), and the large states couldn't be pushed around by small states (protected by their representation in the House). I believe these were the New York and Delaware proposals, but it's been a long time so I'm fuzzy on which states championed which."

No, the Presidency is still weaker than Congress.

lol, and so your 'proof' is a study that doesn't have jack to do with what you're talking about? PR systems aren't more accountable - really, your rationale for why they are isn't even worth a response.

That's not a change of system. Really, if change in political strategies within the same political structure is a change of political system to you -

Such a system would be very easy for a party to game and then misrepresent the will of the people. Also, you'd still have basically no libertarian representatives.

 

My proposal outlined in this thread would maintain the geographic nature of the process. One person, one vote was applied per the Equal Protection Clause. A case can be made relatively easy in saying that by denying over a million people a representative of their choice, they are denied equal protection per the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first time I saw Reynolds v. Sims was in elementary school in a civics textbook. The case is landmark because it set the precedent of one person, one vote.

And, like Washington's warning, Eisenhower's was ignored. Shows me that there's a societal ignorance of learned men able to extrapolate data. Ike was a freaking GENERAL, pretty sure he had some intimate knowledge of the military-industrial complex.

A million voters nationwide have voted for a party that has not once had Congressional representation. That screams unequal to me when each Representative represents under a million voters.

On the notion of district sizes. Montana and Wyoming each have one at-large Congressional district. Montana's district has a population of 902.165 per the last Census, while Wyoming's is 563,626

I wasn't referring to the Presidential election. In fact, nothing of what I am saying with this deals with the Presidential election. I was talking about the House election for 2012 when 1.3 million votes were cast for Libertarian candidates, over a full percent of the votes cast. Proportionally, that would mean up to four Representatives under a 435-seat House.

I ignored the point because your point is WRONG. The parties may have their platforms determined at a state level, but once it percolates to the national level, every one of the party's candidates is expected to toe the party line, and if they stray, they are ostracized with labels such as RINO or DINO. Why is that so hard to comprehend? I'd expect some other posters on this forum to have problems understanding this, but not you.

The parties have steadily become less regional for at least the entire 20th Century. The Fourth Party System during the Progressive Era ushered that in. It strengthened in the next few decades until the divisiveness of the Civil Rights Movement tore the Democratic Party apart in 1968. In 1979 when Jimmy Carter put the final nail in the coffin of Democratic Conservatism with his stripping of tax-exempt status for the "seg academies" that were established to get around Brown v. Board.

The sea-change you are talking about only PEAKED in 2008, it was started WELL before then, in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Think of it like this: You notice a problem with your car, you've gone to the mechanic about six times and still the problem persists. How long are you going to continue to drive the car before you stop and think "Maybe I shouldn't drive this car if I can't figure out what this problem is?"

My proposal is STILL regional representation. A district cannot get a seated representative that wasn't on that district's ballot. It's just hybridized somewhat.

Provinces exist within federal systems. Canada is a stronger federalist system and they have nine "provinces".

Read a history of the Convention and Madison's journal thereof.

They'd still be represented as states.

Like other examples, the courts can mandate that there are limits within which the States have to comply. I'm fine with allowing a state to have a D'Hondt method or a Saint-Lague method.

I have read a bit more of the history of the Philadelphia Convention. Despite the protestations of people like Gerry and Hamilton, the provision was put in to have the House popularly elected. They made sure to make the Senate stronger than the House, however, to make sure that the will of the people had a check by the States, since they considered that the States would send more learned men such as themselves to the Senate.

Not really. As the federal government has grown in size and scope, the Presidency has become de facto stronger.

Not even going to try explaining to you why they're more accountable. Like some of the others on here, you're not going to change your mind no matter how many facts, studies, etc are presented that are contrary to your views.

The use of the blank stare is ironically appropriate. I think I'll go with the many historians who have delineated the different party systems. Each Party System was distinctly different from the last. I don't have time tonight to educate you on the different Party Systems, but there is ample documentation on the Internet.

It wouldn't be as easy as a two-party system, and if my system is implemented, it would mean at least four Representatives from the Libertarian Party, as well as a Green and a Constitution Party candidate. Then, my theory of partisan decompression has a chance to take hold.

The benefit of a fully-functional PR system is that the lobbying industry is diluted. They aren't able to buy off high-ranking partisans and win as many votes. Each district's representative will also have to be more receptive to his district's voters if he wants to retain his seat.

Not able to finish this post, a pipe burst in my apartment, gotta go.

 

If it means they represent the people who vote instead of the people who donate, I'm for it.

 

I think that initially your diagnosis would be correct and it would not end the two party system; however, as more people saw the effect of it I think it would eventually lead to an increase in third parties receiving votes and people casting votes for who they like the most instead of who they like the least.

 

That is the crux of my partisan decompression theory

 

Sadly, I'm pretty sure proportional representation would need a constitutional amendment, and that's not likely.

 

Depending on the method, it wouldn't necessarily need an amendment. All the Constitution says on the matter that the House shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States. It doesn't explicitly say that each state's citizens have to be the sole determiner of who their representative is.

At first, I figured that a PR system would need an Amendment, but then I reread the Constitution. Combine that with the one-person, one-vote mandate created by Reynolds v. Sims that was applied to the States, and there's a definite case for it to be Constitutional without an Amendment. Of course, the two major parties would likely fight against it every chance they could get and even try to get the public to oppose PR because PR means their power goes down.

 

We'd have to abandon single-member districts. Maybe the best way would be a slate of candidates representing multiple parties. Voters get to vote for some fixed number of candidates on the slate (that number would probably vary from one state to another). So there would be no congressional districts as we know them, only statewide representatives. In the House as a whole, we might see representatives of a dozen or more different parties, from the liberals and conservatives to the libertarians, the vegetarians, and whatever. With so many different parties, it's quite likely no one party would command a majority, so winning votes would require coalitions, and plenty of horse-trading.

I'm not convinced that governments working this way are either better or worse than the current American system.

 

It's worth noting that in the early days of the Republic, several states did not have districts, but all of their representatives were at-large. I discovered that a few days ago.

My plan wouldn't necessarily mean the end of single-member districts, but they'd be somewhat rare, because voting would have to be pretty much spot on. Another idea would be that there would be multiple districts overlaid with each other for different parties.

 

What if you wanted to vote for the vegetarian candidate, who was the only candidate of that party in the whole state? Would you just have to be lucky enough to live in a district where he appeared on the ballot?

Alternatively, would you keep the Senate as a 2-per-state body, but "float" the House such that a single slate of candidates ran nationwide, eliminating all notion of districts?

 

Hmm, good point. I had not considered that one

Write-in candidates would be allowed, so you could vote for a candidate in a different district even if that district is in a different state. Those votes would then count for that party and that candidate.

If PR was adopted under the 1787 Constitution, the Senate would remain unchanged from its current setup. It'd be much more complicated and more difficult to get the Senate moved away from the two-party system.

Having all candidates run nationwide would be a nightmare.