I strongly support ranked choice voting. It seems to me it would result in less polarization, as it would favor candidates who are more broadly appealing. And it is also a more efficient process, eliminating the need for expensive run-off elections.
I don’t like the idea of multimember districts. It seems to me it would result in 3 times the number of legislators, 3 times the number of staffers, and 3 times the cost. And I think it could cause confusion among constituents as to who represents their district, particularly if their 3 representatives are working at cross-purposes. I would favor an opposite approach – a unicameral legislature. Let’s reduce the number of legislators, cut costs, and eliminate the duplication of having two legislative bodies. At the state level (after the Supreme Court’s Reynolds vs. Sims decision), one legislative body should suffice.
The descriptions I’ve seen talk about multimember districts talk about “megadistricts”: it wouldn’t be three times the cost because there would be one-third the number of districts.
Multimember districts reduce the problems with gerrymandering:
A megadistrict with 62 lesser-evil voters (LE) and 40 evil voters should get 2 LE representatives and 1 evil representative.
However, as three separate districts instead of a single multimember megadistrict, the vote might yield only 1 LE representative and 2 evil representatives by carving up the districts like this:
District 1: 34 LE voters and 0 evil voters = LE representative wins by 100%
District 2: 14 LE voters and 20 evil voters = evil representative #1 wins by 17%
District 3: 14 LE voters and 20 evil voters = evil representative #2 wins by 17%
Combining districts into multi-member megadistricts should reduce the effects of gerrymandering and give voters more proportional representation.
I like the unicameral legislature idea.