America: NOW are you ready for proportional representation?

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, as for what the Framers would have thought about this:

"[A legislature]…should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should feel, reason and act like them."

-- John Adams

The SMD/FPTP system tends to produce a legislature more like your image in a funhouse mirror, with some elements of your appearance blown out of proportion and others shrunk to invisibility. PR produces a more nearly accurate portrait. (The most accurate portrait of all would be produced by sortition -- picking Congresscritters from the population at random, like jurors -- but then we would not have a Congress, we would have a focus group.)

 

[Sean]

You are right. They got a lot wrong in building the framework for the greatest country in the history of the planet. What fools they were. Thanks for setting me straight.

The founding fathers didn't build the framework for New Zealand. Just fyi.

 

[shoulderblade]

There are several systems of proportional representation and each leads to different results.

The European Parliament is elected by proportional representation and minority parties get some seats even though most voters don't want them.

What happened in two Canadian Provinces (NL & ON) was the issue was voted on in a public referendum. Result: no reform.

Well, that is the point of PR, to make sure the minor parties get some seats if some voters want them.

How democratic. . Because some voters want it What ever happened to the will of the majority?

 

[KingOrfeo]

How democratic. . Because some voters want it What ever happened to the will of the majority?

When Congress/Parliament however constituted votes on a bill, that's when the majority wins.

 

[patient1]

I doubt that anything could change before the next century.

It would require a Constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3rds majority of state legislatures or a Constitutional convention. That would mean the status quo surrendering it's power.

Nobody can agree to hold a Constitutional convention for fear that one of the following amendments might pass- Balanced budget, Equal Rights for women, Right to Life, Gay marriage. There's no telling what horse trading might go on at a convention.

 

[jeninflorida]

Well, I'm waiting for the 2nd coming....of Steve Jobs. Jobs will fix America

In the past few years I've heard a lot from lefties disappointed with Obama. In the past few months I've heard a lot from Tea Partiers and libertarians frustrated with the GOP.

But, what else ya gonna do? Throw your vote away on a third party?

The problem is that America's single-member-district winner-take-all plurality system for electing legislatures marginalizes third parties, just by mechanical operation. See Duverger's Law. Or, as that respected polysci publication TVTropes puts it:



Or put another way: Suppose, in your state's next legislative election, 20% of the voters decide to vote Green (or substitute your favorite) this year. And suppose they actually manage to get a Green candidate on the ballot in every district. (Not likely, but third-party ballot access is a different problem.) How many Greens get into the state legislature? Almost certainly none -- because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to form a majority or plurality there.

And that's why, no matter who you are or what your politics, you will find yourself making such strange and unpleasant bedfellows, if you are active in either major party. It has to be a "big tent" to win.

The same mechanics don't apply in race where there is only one office to be won, like the presidency or a governorship or mayorship.* But the parties created for legislative races are the real ones, a necessary foundation for anything else. Ross Perot tried creating a third party for presidential elections only -- when's the last you heard of it?

If you're frustrated with all that, change the rules of the game! Start (or join) a movement to change to proportional representation! There are many forms of it; the point of all of them is that if the Greens, or sub your fave, get 20% of the votes, they get very roughly 20% of the seats.

Let all the various discontented non-dominant political factions who can't stand each other agree to work side by side on just this one cause. Then, once we have PR, you can participate in a smaller, more ideologically homogeneous party, which will actually get representation in your state legislature and Congress; and then the indispensable compromises of policy-making can be made in Congress, where everyone can (better) watch, instead of being made within major-party caucuses. Better.


* Different anti-third-party mechanics operate in a single-office election. Those can be remedied by instant-runoff voting and electoral fusion.

 

[Henry_McCarty]

In the past few years I've heard a lot from lefties disappointed with Obama. In the past few months I've heard a lot from Tea Partiers and libertarians frustrated with the GOP.

But, what else ya gonna do? Throw your vote away on a third party?

The problem is that America's single-member-district winner-take-all plurality system for electing legislatures marginalizes third parties, just by mechanical operation. See Duverger's Law. Or, as that respected polysci publication TVTropes puts it:



Or put another way: Suppose, in your state's next legislative election, 20% of the voters decide to vote Green (or substitute your favorite) this year. And suppose they actually manage to get a Green candidate on the ballot in every district. (Not likely, but third-party ballot access is a different problem.) How many Greens get into the state legislature? Almost certainly none -- because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to form a majority or plurality there.

And that's why, no matter who you are or what your politics, you will find yourself making such strange and unpleasant bedfellows, if you are active in either major party. It has to be a "big tent" to win.

The same mechanics don't apply in race where there is only one office to be won, like the presidency or a governorship or mayorship.* But the parties created for legislative races are the real ones, a necessary foundation for anything else. Ross Perot tried creating a third party for presidential elections only -- when's the last you heard of it?

If you're frustrated with all that, change the rules of the game! Start (or join) a movement to change to proportional representation! There are many forms of it; the point of all of them is that if the Greens, or sub your fave, get 20% of the votes, they get very roughly 20% of the seats.

Let all the various discontented non-dominant political factions who can't stand each other agree to work side by side on just this one cause. Then, once we have PR, you can participate in a smaller, more ideologically homogeneous party, which will actually get representation in your state legislature and Congress; and then the indispensable compromises of policy-making can be made in Congress, where everyone can (better) watch, instead of being made within major-party caucuses. Better.


* Different anti-third-party mechanics operate in a single-office election. Those can be remedied by instant-runoff voting and electoral fusion.

In your link, it says that 'non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes'. With the U.S. elections being very close in 2000 and 2004, how does that fit in?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I doubt that anything could change before the next century.

It would require a Constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3rds majority of state legislatures or a Constitutional convention. That would mean the status quo surrendering it's power.

Changing how we elect Congress would require that. States can change their systems -- at the state level and at the local level -- much more easily.

We really should focus on PR at the state and local levels first, anyway. That's how the suffragettes got the 19th Amendment: Female suffrage was tried out first in California and a few other Western states, and, then, when society did not disastrously collapse after a few years of that, it made it easier to sell the national-level reform.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In your link, it says that 'non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes'. With the U.S. elections being very close in 2000 and 2004, how does that fit in?

You're thinking of presidential elections; those are irrelevant to this discussion, there is no such thing as PR possible when there is only one office to fill.

Unfortunately, under our present system, every seat in every legislature is effectively treated, separately, as "only one office to fill." That's single-member-districting.

 

[badbabysitter]

Does this...

Wait, did you just...

Am I reading that correctly?

Technically he's correct... the Queen is still the technical head of our government

it's probably the only thing he's ever been right on.. let it slide this once

 

[badbabysitter]

What happened in two Canadian Provinces (NL & ON) was the issue was voted on in a public referendum. Result: no reform.

Happened in BC too... Canada doesnt end at the Rockies.. just so you know

 

[KingOrfeo]

Technically he's correct... the Queen is still the technical head of our government

it's probably the only thing he's ever been right on.. let it slide this once

What practical difference does that make? Serious question. From the TVTropes Useful Notes page on the British Political System:

Mostly, however, the monarch just drinks tea and advises the Prime Minister. Several prime ministers, among them Margaret Thatcher have attested that this is typically not just ceremony: the Queen has access to most significant government documents, and apparently, has spent several hours a day every day for the last fifty or so years going through them. There's very little she doesn't know about government policy.

So, I was wondering: If the Governor-General of Canada stands in for the Queen in Ottowa -- does the Gov-Gen do what the Queen does in the UK (and presumably would do in Canada if she lived there)? I.e., does the Gov-Gen meet weekly with the PM to "do the boxes" and advise?

 

[badbabysitter]

What practical difference does that make? Serious question. From the TVTropes Useful Notes page on the British Political System:



So, I was wondering: If the Governor-General of Canada stands in for the Queen in Ottowa -- does the Gov-Gen do what the Queen does in the UK (and presumably would do in Canada if she lived there)? I.e., does the Gov-Gen meet weekly with the PM to "do the boxes" and advise?

Our Governor General for the most part does jack shit.. she acts as a diplomat and shows up at place where a friendly face is needed.. plus she can suspend Parliament if need be.. she's only ever done that once... at our current PM's behest.. who was facing a vote of no confidence... for a few weeks a few years ago.. Canada technically didnt have a government

 

[shoulderblade]

Happened in BC too... Canada doesnt end at the Rockies.. just so you know

Thanks on that. I was not aware of the BC situation.

Makes my argument all the better thoiugh.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Our Governor General for the most part does jack shit.. she acts as a diplomat and shows up at place where a friendly face is needed.. plus she can suspend Parliament if need be.. she's only ever done that once... at our current PM's behest.. who was facing a vote of no confidence... for a few weeks a few years ago.. Canada technically didnt have a government

Did anybody notice?

 

[badbabysitter]

Did anybody notice?

Not really.. woke me up to how much of a petty little despot Harper is though