Yup. Precisely my worry. CA could end up looking like NY’s delegation after 2012. We’re now down to a jaw-dropping 3 out of 29 seats. Simply unimaginable. 1 seat on Long Island and 2 upstate. If King on L.I. retires, that seat could fall, and we’ll be at 2. Not since 2000 have we knocked off a Democrat incumbent there (and that was a RINO who had been elected as an “R” in ‘98 and switched parties), and prior to that, not since 1994 (and haven’t won an open Dem seat since 1992). In CA, we haven’t won a Dem held seat (via retirement) since 1998 nor knocked off a Democrat incumbent since 1994, all very disturbing trends.
I’m beginning to think proportional representation isn’t such a bad idea. NY is not a 90% Democrat state. We should have at minimum about 10-12 out of 29 seats. Even Massachusetts, we should have 3 or 4 out of 10 seats. That may be the only way to ensure any representation at all. New England’s 6 states being 100% Democrat in the House is simply unacceptable and absolutely unrepresentative.
I also favor proportional representation, but not at a statewide level (except for states with 5 or fewer EVs).
NY will drop to 27 CDs after the 2010 census. If the state was broken down into nine 3-member districts, with each voter getting a single vote (so a 51% Democrat district can’t elect three Democrats), it would eliminate the possibility of the Democrats winning 20+ seats. Think about it: if Suffolk and most of Nassau Counties comprised a 3-member district, they would elect either two Democrats and one Reoublican or two Republicans and one Democrat, in either case more representative of the area than having three districts that in the late 80s elected 3 Democrats and in the late 90s elected three Republicans.
Having districts electing 3 or 5 members by proportional representation would be an extremely fair system nationwide, but it would be problematic for states with 2, 4 or 7 CDs, since having a multi-member district that elects an even number of members would rarely allow voters to elect a majority of members of the party of their choice. For example, if RI elected its two reps in a 2-member district, the Republicans could run one guy who would be guaranteed election so long as he got at least 1/3 of the vote, so the Democrats would need at least 67% of the vote (split evenly among two candidates) to have a majority in its House delegation; the same is true, with the party roles reversed, for Idaho. Perhaps the solution is to have states with 2 CDs have two single-member districts as always, states with 4 CDs have one single-member district and one 3-member district, and states with 7 CDs have one single-member district and two 3-member districts.
BTW, proportional representation, or some variation thereof, shuld also be considered for the allocation of electoral votes in presidential elections.