Does advocacy of proportional representation undercut voting rights strategies using single-seat districts?
But there can be pragmatic arguments for proportional systems quite apart from the legal battles over Shaw. As civil rights attorneys have discovered in more than fifty Texas jurisdictions with cumulative voting and in the more than two dozen counties and cities in North Carolina and Alabama that have settled with limited voting, proportional and semi-proportional systems sometimes are a good fit with local conditions. Perhaps the minority community is more geographically dispersed than necessary for a single-seat district plan — like the Asian Pacific American communities in New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco, where majority-minority districts have utterly failed to adequately represent APAs, electing only one APA out of a total of 77 local government seats. Perhaps a small jurisdiction wants to avoid redistricting every decade. In some multi-racial communities, small and large, a citywide proportional plan is the easiest way for different racial minorities to elect represe
Related Questions
- Was there any change in my proportional ownership interest in Piedmont, my voting rights, my right to receive dividends, or the total amount of my dividends as a result of the reverse stock split?
- Are States Compelled by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to Maintain Safe Districts With Minority Supermajorities?
- What is the difference between the plurality voting system and proportional representation?
