>>18245719
What act is this again?

>>18245779
I'm learning about it - the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967.
As I understand it, it was an attempt to prevent a return to blocks of representatives being chosen to represent entities as large as a whole state. So, you wouldn't have, for example, some representatives from one party, and other representatives from another, you'd vote for a whole block of representatives for your entire state. The Southern states were supposedly interested in doing that as a way to stop the hekkin Blackarinos from getting more representatives from states where they were a minority overall, but a majority in some particular area.
This concern was dealt with by the idea of having one representative for whatever area you vote in. But the result was that it effectively closed the possibility of mixed-member proportional representation, where you assign representatives to an area based on the percentages of people who voted for each candidate/party.
There's actually no constitutional ban on mixed-member proportional representation. Major parties though are obviously incetivised to keep the current arrangement.
I have read though that some Democrats are trying to introduce it in a limited way in order to stop "extremism" and "polarisation" because it would force politicians to curry favour with third or fourth party voters instead of, I guess, taking extreme positions. What the logic of this is and why it's being done, I don't know. It could be a fuck-Orange-Man rather than a pro-Democrat strategy.