"Open" primaries vs. Proportional Representation

[renard_ruse]

In California, powerful establishment forces have conned voters into approval of a radical change to our electoral system. For the first time, partisan offices will be contested under a new "open" primary system. This however is not what some might think of as an "open" primary where a voter may elect upon arrival at the polling place to choose to cross over and vote in a primary for a party in which he/she is not a registered member. No, this is a far more radical idea in which multiple candidates from the same party will compete with multiple candidates from other parties. If any candidate receives 50%+1 of the vote that candidate is elected outright. In the more likely scenario, if no candidate wins 50%+1 of the vote, the top two vote getters will face off in the fall "general" election regardless of what percentage they received.

This system was deliberately crafted in intent to narrow the political spectrum even further then it was and give a deliberate advantage to perceived "centrist" candidates. Whether it actually works out that way in practice remains to be seen. What is clear is that this system will largely favor chance in many cases and is obviously stupid.

This electoral "reform," which intends to narrow the political spectrum is perhaps the exact opposite of real electoral reform in the form of Proportional Representation which would allow a wide range of views from multiple parties to be reflected in exact proportion to their share of support among the electorate. Proportional Representation is the most common electoral system around the world, and ensures that "no vote is wasted" in contrast to this ridiculous "reform" here in California which wants even more votes to be wasted then were under the previous system.

The California "reform" is far from a "reform" while Proportional Representation would have instead been real reform and a true democratization of our electoral system.

 

[renard_ruse]

At first glace, this new California system may appear to be similar to the French "two round" system, however, it is in fact even more stupid.

In the French system, there are multiple major parties and each party only runs one candidate in the first round. Therefore, voters can use the first round to express a preference for a smaller party to make a statement while still having the chance to vote for a candidate with a real shot at winning in round two. Under the new bizarre California "reform" there could be five Democrats, two Republicans, one Libertarian, and two Greens all running against each other in the "primary," and the two Republicans could end up first and second and facing each other in the "general" election. Obviously, the intent is that in that case, the Democrats and Greens would all be expected to line up behind the more "moderate" Republican in the "general" election which is the intent of the new "reform" among the establishment (to weed out conservative Republicans and leftist Democrats as much as possible). Putting aside the fact this is "gaming" of the system to favor certain types of candidates and disenfranchise those with views the establishment doesn't like, the whole thing is just hokey and stupid and who really even knows how it will play out.

California is already a laughing stock to the rest of the country and this new system now ensures we are not only far less democratic than most other states but far stupider too. Shame on us.

 

[renard_ruse]

Under Proportional Representation, every vote counts. There would likely be at least six major parties. If you like perceived "centrists" you could vote for them. If you like some other ideology, there would be a party for you too. Every view would get representation in proportion to its share of support among the public.

PR sounds like a win-win for everybody.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Why not make it real simple. Anyone who is qualified to hold the office and pays the fee or turns in enough signatures gets on the ballot. Then the general population votes and whoever has a simple majority of votes wins.

Do away with the electorial college. Put term limits on congress and senate. Do away with the congressional pension plan. It's insane that if you get elected to congress and serve a two year term you get a pension for life.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you want proportional representation (and/or instant-runoff voting), join FairVote.

 

[ChinaBandit]

Are the people not already proportionately represented in state asembly and the US House of Representatives?

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Are the people not already proportionately represented in state asembly and the US House of Representatives?

You are thinking of proportional representation as what we have.

First Sen. do not represent the people,, they represent the state. This is why when a Sen. seat is vacant the Gov. of that state gets to appoint a replacement without any input from the citizenry. For example let's say the Dem Sen from Fl for what ever reason is no longer a Sen. The GOP Gov. can replace him with a GOP member, no questions asked.

the Rep are supposed to be the peoples liason to the Gov. They must be elected by the people when a vacancy occurs.

Every state has 2 senators. The rpes are based on population, one of he reasons for the decennial census.

The proportional representation discussed above means means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Are the people not already proportionately represented in state asembly and the US House of Representatives?

Not in the sense the term "proportional representation" is used.

The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets -- which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.

If you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.

See also:

Instant-Runoff Voting: For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one -- which presents the "spoiler" problem -- in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted "1 -- Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader"; or, "1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan"; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you.

(I've read arguments that the similar approval voting system, where you just vote "yes" or "no" as to each of several candidates, does offer certain abstruse-to-all-but-polysci-nerds-even-worse-than-I advantages over IRV. But, I'm thinking IRV is better for America, because, 1) it's an easier sell -- the chances to rank-order the candidates is more psychologically satisfying to the voter; and 2) the results, how the voters rank-order the candidates, produces information of greater civic value.)

Electoral fusion: Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party's), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however.

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the People's Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation."[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Mississippi
New York
Oregon
South Carolina
Vermont

In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Let's not forget the confusion created in early elections when the runner up for president was declared the VP. This lead to more than one President and VP from different parties with differing views. Must've made for some interesting situations.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Let's not forget the confusion created in early elections when the runner up for president was declared the VP. This lead to more than one President and VP from different parties with differing views. Must've made for some interesting situations.

The Framers didn't really anticipate any kind of a party-system (such a thing was just barely developed in Britain yet) when they drafted the Constitution. But, no modern republic can avoid/get along without political parties.