I am glad you are replying one more time, giving me time to look up the Connecticut Compromise and realizing words are here not what they seem.

The Connecticut Compromise has nothing to do with Proportional Voting.

Proportional Voting is a mechanism and it delivers full representation to all voters, no matter where they live.

Proportional Representation as discussed in the Connecticut Compromise was about voters being each other's equals -- after they got divided into equal districts.

In the USA, we never had Proportional Voting at any level of government, despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson already devised exactly such a mechanism.

In the USA, we have winner-take-all for all elections (and some spin-offs such as at-large voting). We give the seat to the person that the majority voted for. The minimum is therefore 50% plus one vote.

In Sweden, the Netherlands, and Spain, the entire voting population can point their fingers to the individuals or parties they hand-picked themselves. There are no losing voters in those countries. All voters (99+%) are represented.

In the US, we have up to 49.9% of the voters going home empty-handed.

--

Local Revolutions grassroots organization wants to change the voting system in our cities and counties because it is the law. The Founding fathers never envisioned a two-party system, but they did envision the mob sitting in those political chairs.

The Bill of Rights is read such that governments cannot use a discriminating system when there is a better system available -- unless given exception.

The Federal level is given plenty exception. For instance, two senators per state, and no state can make that three. It's prescribed, so it is the law.

The State level is not given this specific exception, but they are given various powers to the extent that there are enough loopholes for them to not use the better voting system.

The local levels of cities and counties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, so they truly bump into the realm of power held by the People. They must follow the US Constitution first, and only then can they follow State rules and regulations.

This happens to be a fantastic setup.

At the local level Proportional Voting is the undisputed voting system, not a single person in the know will disagree on that.

The level where Proportional Voting has its disadvantages is that we do not want a large nation like the United States to end up with twenty ineffective little parties. That would not be good.

So, the good news is that we cannot change the US Constitution for that level. It’s theoretically possible, but it is not going to happen.

Yet, once the wool comes off our eyes when voting proportionally at the local level, then we want to have some of that for our State elections as well. At the State level, it is not that difficult to change the voting system -- if the majority of the people agree. They won't agree until they have learned that proportional voting puts them in the driver's seat and pushes special interests and money further away from our politicians.

As a result, once that has happened at the State level as well, then the Federal level will automatically get three, four or five parties, just enough to make each party more honest toward the voters -- and we don't have to change a thing at the Federal level. This is automatic because voters will recognize that other parties can get established and can be effective at their State levels. So, they will continue to vote more diverse than flipping the coin like we do today.

Here is an image of proportional voting to the right next to our district voting for a city with eight seats to the left.

In green, the voters that got their representative as voted for and, in white, the maximum number of voters that go home empty-handed.

To the left, our 8 district elections with each one winner.

To the right, 8 seats voted in proportionally, meaning that each seats is voted in with receiving at least about 11% of support by the voters.

As you can see, special interest and money can influence our system better because our system is not based on all voters. In Proportional Voting, special interests are out in the open together with the candidates competing in a much stronger manner than what we have, and the voters declare which ones are liked and which ones are not liked.

There, the voters compete with voters.

There, the candidates compete with the candidates and all of them cannot be bought by one and the same group standing in the background.