>> None of this has anything to do with the system of electing legislatures
that we use.
Is true but irrelevant. My point was just that old aint necesasrily bad and anyway the system aint that old.
You say:
>>Our system is so bad it doesn't deserve to be called
>> "representative." And this has nothing to do with class politics. I'm
>>talking basic mathematical mechanics.
I could understand the point if it were about class politics. Your point about mathematics I don't get. You say:
>>I'm supposedly "represented" by a Republican in Congress. Elsewhere
there are Republicans supposedly "represented" by Democrats.
Apparently your idea is that if your elected legislator doesn't agree with you he can't represent you. I don't see that. I don't think that Democratic or Republican legislators trhemselves see themselves as represeting only their party members or the people who voted for them. They envisage themselves as representing even the interests of those misguided enough to vote for the other guy. And to a certaon extent they act to bring common benefits toa ll their constituents.
>>Altogether
in Claifornia there are enough Greens that we could send a memeber to
Congress--but we can't because our system represents geographical
districts (cut up all funny to protect incumbents, but let's ignore the
imperfections, and put the BEST possible light on it), NOT people.
But people have other shared interests than ideological commonality. I don't think geographical representation is per se crazy. If my Congressperson can ger federal dollars for my geographical district, it benefits be in any case, for example.
>>This
is the real sense in which our system is antiquated -- and it harkens
back to the Middle Ages, NOT the 18th Century.
When of course all was Dark and people had to fo around reading by the light of burning heretics. What makes you think that geopgraphic representation is a particularly medieval idea.
--jks
-- >>