I'm not sure that I completely understand all of the implications, but I like it. I think Doonesbury made fun of bloggers that just crib opinions from the Times, but I bet Trudeau is a blogsnob (patent pending).

william raspberry Everything about the present system encourages such gerrymandering and manipulation. Richie would change the system.

One relatively simple change would be to move from the winner-take-all single-member districts to three-seat "super districts," with each voter getting three votes to distribute as he or she wishes. Rather than losing a race even with 49.9 percent of the vote, as could be the case now, candidates in a super district could be elected with 25 percent of the vote.

What that means in practical terms is that significantly more voters would have someone in office whom they voted for. Racial and political minorities would be far more likely than now to be represented in the legislatures.

"Americans think that no Democrats live in the Rockies, or that there are no Republicans in Massachusetts," says Richie. "They're there; they just don't win very often. Actually, most of us live in places that are pretty far gone to one party or the other."

...

"Throughout the Deep South, the dispersion of black voters often keeps them from having the numbers to win a seat, but if it only takes 25 percent, that changes. The most likely outcome in a three-seat district in these cases would be the election of a black Democrat, a white conservative Republican and a centrist of one party or the other. As it is now, hardly any centrists of, say, the Sam Nunn type, are winning."