comment: >
  
  The average congressional district represents around 750,000 people. A district I used to be in (just redistricted) stretched for about a total 8 hour drive from one side to the other.
  Most people don’t know the names of their house representatives. I’m sure many couldn’t name a Senator of their state. Even if they can, most have never had any contact with their representatives and even for those who would have contact with them, many will not do so because their representative is diametrically opposed to everything they believe in due to such bad political polarization.
  Districts aren’t serving any functional purpose, other than for political parties to choose who votes for each of the available seats, doing their best to pre-determine the outcome.
  In an at-large system, it’s a lot tougher to do that. You can effectively gerrymander a districted system to ensure that no matter your statewide vote percentage, you can guarantee 60% of seats. In PR, you’re only gonna get what you get. 
  Not to mention that you can still create districts if desired. Representatives could be allocated after the fact to provide constituent services. We already do this with other officials, including judges. But again, I don’t even think it’s necessary. Allow voters to connect with the rep they feel most comfortable with.
context: I reject your premise. Define "does nothing."
  Do you mean that if you're in the minority your vote doesn't change the outcome? True. That's also true if you're in the majority. So would you say that if you're in the majority your vote does nothing?
  That would mean no matter who you vote for, your vote does nothing. But that's just a fancy way of saying "You don't single-handedly choose the representative."
  Yeah, that's how voting works. No one person's vote changes the outcome.
  It still matters.
  It matters because the legitimacy of the government is derived from the democratic participation of its citizens. Your vote matters because representatives are chosen by the people, not by one marginal voter, but by the people collectively. They all matter. >
  
  If that were true, why has our government faced no crisis of legitimacy after decades of poor electoral turnout? In reality, whether or not people invest in the system has zero bearing on the government claims to legitimacy.
  If participation did have bearing on legitimacy, proportional representation would reflect that. It’s de-legitimizing that one national party can win millions fewer votes and represent only a third of voters, yet hold a majority in congress. >
  
  If you don't like that, yer gonna hate parliamentary coalition building >
  
  Different problems, but at least they generally avoid such radically disproportionate representation >
  
  You lose the idea of representing a district. 
  I’d rather we move to ranked choice voting. >
  
  Ranked choice voting is helpful, but I personally feel it doesn't go far enough to combat gerrymandering. Mixed member proportional representation is a proportional system that maintains representatives representing a district, while adding the benefits of ensuring every vote contributes to electing an official that aligns with the vote. 
  Would this be sufficient? >
  
  I’m a bit more incremental in my approach to things. Let’s start with change that can actually happen. >
  
  I'm a big fan of proportional representation but perhaps an even bigger fan of MMP:
  Two Ticks 
  Edit: MMP preserves local representation (even though it think local representation'benefits are enormously overstated by the 3 peoples who write to you their representative) >
  
  RCV+an uncapped house would be sufficient for me. I don’t hate the idea but I like having a specific rep whose name I know.  PSA at large elections have been stuck down as discriminatory based on VRA >
  
  You can have both district representation and proportional representation, see MMPR (used in Germany and New Zealand).
  In practice, it leads to the same kind of political dynamics as party-list proportional representation. Most people don't actually care about who is "their" representative and they just vote for a party. >
  
  
  Your vote does nothing if you're in the minority of a voting district
  
  I disagree with the premise of your post.  You're saying that your vote does nothing unless you vote for the winning candidate?  That's nonsense.  Your vote matters, you just lost.  Approximately half the voters in every election vote for the loser, and that goes for everything from student council to President.  
  Voting matters even if you don't win. >
  
  I personally disagree with it too, but that is the mainstream argument applied to any voter 'wasting' their vote on a third party candidate. In either case, most Western countries have shifted to proportional representation of some form to greatly expand the representation of each voter. >
  
  No, that's no the argument about wasting your vote.
  You are wasting your vote in a two party system if you vote for a third party because that party doesn't have a coalition and they CANNOT win.  That's a far cry from voting for a candidate who could win, but didn't and therefore its a waste.  
  
  most Western countries have shifted to proportional representation of some form
  
  The USA has not.  We have a strict two party system and you waste your vote in a two party system if you vote for a candidate who doesn't have a coalition.  We're not Denmark or whatever country you are thinking of. >
  
  Voting in many districts for the minority party is no different than a third party vote in that the minority party has no chance of winning either. 
  We don't have a strict two party system. We have allowed terrible congresspersons to warp and manipulate election rules to inhibit and prevent a third party from ever gaining traction. There have been several decades in US history where other voting methods were employed but the dominant two parties immediately altered voting rules to maintain a monopoly. >
  
  
  Voting in many districts for the minority party is no different than a third party vote
  
  Yes there is a difference and I already explained what it is.  Democrats and Republicans have broad coalitions of support.  Third parties have no coalition.  That's the difference.
  
  We don't have a strict two party system.
  
  Uh, yeah we do.  Did you follow anything that went on with electing the speaker of the house?
  
  There have been several decades in US history where other voting methods were employed 
  
  Its possible, I'm not familiar with voting politics prior to the Civil War.  Since then we have a solidly two party system.  Either way, I'm talking about throwing away your vote in 2023, not 1823. >
  
  Using proportional representation on a state level wouldn't make much sense. You'd be watering down each districts influence on congress by fracturing their seats. And the salaries for the additional few hundred members of congress would be a complete waste of money, you couldn't pay them proportionally as travel expenses alone would be too high. There really is no logical reason to apply that. 
  But I'd also argue that your vote isn't wasted at all. You may not always get what you want but participation is important. >
  
  You dont have to add hundreds of members: you could just make house elections state-wide, meaning if a state with 20 seats goes 40% Republican, Republicans get 8 seats, as opposed to anywhere from the 4 to 12 they'd get now. Districts are just artificial divisions. >
  
  Artificial divisions with your representative living in your community with an office down the street from your house. That's incredibly important.