According to the US Constitution, the Federal elections are simply what they are, described in detail. Voting at the Federal level is therefore not a privilege (i.e. the voters are not fully represented by their own votes, and this is by design).
It is at the State and local levels that we can get rid of the two-party chokehold. As a result, we would end up with a three-to-five-party system at the Federal level, all because of what the 14th Amendment declares. There will be a ‘trickle-up’ effect.
The wording in question is found in the US Constitution, so judges do not get to rule on this. The wording can get changed via the political pathway, but not through legal means.
When there is a single seat, then just a single person can win that seat. There are no other options.
Yet when there are nine seats, for instance, in a city, then proportional voting ensures that at minimum 90% of the voters can point to the person sitting in a seat that they voted for themselves. In district voting that minimum is just 50%, so that is a difference of 40% for the bare minimum.
When there are 19 seats, then proportional voting ensures 95% of the voters at minimum their accurate representation; nearly a doubling in percentage.
Instead of having districts, all seats are voted on in one single election. The pie of seats is cut up proportionally. The portion of voters picking the Orange Party is the same portion of seats the Orange Party then receives.
Once the chokehold is gone that only the majority picks the winners, then we can have everyone get their own representatives.
In a city with ten seats, the normal number of parties is three or four.
In a city with twenty seats, the normal number of parties is four to six, variations notwithstanding (it could be as few as three, for instance).
In the US, we will likely see that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party pick up steam, enough to bring them into the Senate and particularly the House of Representatives. The Senate is harder because the 'districts' are large and there needs to be a solid base first before a third-party candidate is picked. Yet in time this will happen.
As a result, more truths will be spoken in the House of Representatives, and as a result better compromises will be made.
Let me finish with minimum wage as an example of an important political issue. Because today folks working for minimum wage are not able to become politically empowered (much), their demand for better living wages are not progressing through Congress (or State legislatures); currently, these voters with this specific need are oppressed from expressing their political perspective.
With more parties present, this item will end up being discussed and addressed better. These voters can get represented by their own representatives whereas today they cannot.
Here is the link to the wiki page for the gini index, showing in top a map of the world that the USA gives substantially more money to the top and less money to the bottom than any other rich nation in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.10
(scroll down for details per country)
Thank you for being interested in making our political reality based better on the voters and less on the mechanics of winner-take-all.
