This article lays out the ways that voter suppression happens in the US:
It doesn't even bother to mention gerrmandering, or the electorial college, both which have a *huge* impact on voters.
These specific rules have a huge impact on minorities and poor people, and are meant to keep them from voting, especially poor people in urban areas, who predominantly vote for Democrats.
Compared to flat popular vote, electorial college provides check against 150mn Dem votes coming from California, or 200mn GOP votes coming from Texas, or both.
But no reason why states couldn't be given a proportion of single-transferrable-vote, then let counties to decide how the state's proportion is divided, and so on down to people.
This type of thing seems obvious but doesn't give either Dems or GOP a clear advantage, which is why I think it's not talked about.
I guess if one state has 99% voter participation and another has 1%, even with the STV model they'll be weighted equally by census data, so yes, I agree then, the whole thing incentivizes states to discourage voting.
I suppose my concern could be checked by discarding results from any state which counts more votes than - say - income tax filers (?)
Yup! The way to address low voter turnout isn't to go after symptoms but the cause by lowering the barriers to voting, or make voting mandatory.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!