Proportional representation

[pecksniff]

There's always a certain level of bitching on this board about the limited options available in a two-party system.

But, the mechanics of a single-member-district representation system naturally produce a two-party system. Suppose in your state's next legislative elections, 20% of the voters vote Green (or Libertarian, Socialist, substitute your own favorite third party). How many Greens get into the legislature? None, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to form a majority or even a plurality.

Changing ballot-access laws to make it easier for third-party candidates to get on the ballot won't change that. The only way to change it is proportional representation.

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.[1] The concept applies mainly to geographical and political divisions of the electorate.

The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result—not just a plurality, or a bare majority. The most prevalent forms of proportional representation all require the use of multiple-member voting districts (also called super-districts), as it is not possible to fill a single seat in a proportional manner. In fact, PR systems that achieve the highest levels of proportionality tend to include districts with large numbers of seats, as large as a province or an entire nation.[2]

The most widely used families of PR electoral systems are party-list PR, single transferable vote (STV), and mixed-member PR (MMP).[3]

With party list PR, political parties define candidate lists and voters vote for a list. The relative vote for each list determines how many candidates from each list are actually elected. Lists can be "closed" or "open". Closed lists are determined before the elections, usually by the party heads or by primary elections. Open lists allow voters to indicate preferences for individual candidates during the elections.
With single transferable vote, voters can rank individual candidates, rather than just vote for a single "best" candidate. During the count, as candidates are elected or eliminated, surplus or discarded votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred to other candidates in order of preferences, forming consensus groups that elect surviving candidates. STV enables voters to vote across party lines, to choose the most preferred of a party's candidates and vote for independent candidates, knowing that if the candidate is not elected their vote will likely not be wasted.
Mixed member PR (MMP), also called the additional member system (AMS), is a two-tier mixed electoral system, combining local non-proportional plurality/majoritarian elections and a compensatory regional or national party-list PR election. Voters typically have two votes, one for their single-member district and one for the party list. Parties that are under-represented by district elections are compensated by additional members, such that the total number of members of each party is proportional based on the party-list vote.[2][4]
In the European Parliament for instance, each member state has a number of seats that is (roughly) proportional to its population, enabling geographical proportional representation. Almost all European countries also have political proportional representation (ideological proportional representation to the degree that parties honestly describe their goals): When n% of the electorate support a particular political party or set of candidates as their favorite, then roughly n% of seats are allotted to that party or those candidates.[5]

According to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network,[6] some form of proportional representation is used for national lower house elections in 94 countries. Party list PR, being used in 85 countries, is the most widely used. MMP is used in seven lower houses. STV is used in only two: Ireland, since independence in 1922,[7] and Malta, since 1921.[8] STV is also used in the Australian Senate, and can be used for nonpartisan elections such as the city council of Cambridge, Massachusetts.[9]

Due to factors such as electoral thresholds and the use of small constituencies, as well as manipulation tactics such as party splitting and gerrymandering, perfect proportionality is rarely achieved under these systems. Nonetheless, they approximate proportionality much better than other systems.[10] Some jurisdictions use leveling seats to compensate for such,

 

[oggbashan]

There are several diff3ernt systems of starting proportional representation,

When, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats were in a coalition with the Conservative party, they visited that proportional representation should be considered. It was - the worst possible system that was rejected.

When the UK was in the EU, elections to the useless EU parliament was by proportional representation and some smaller parties got seats, but not enough, even when combined with similar parties elsewhere in the EU, to make any difference.

In European countries that have proportional representation for their national parliaments, coalitions are almost essential because no single party wins enough seats to form a government on their own. Some of those coalitions can be very unstable as in Sweden recently when the coalition collapsed in hours and a new one in days.

Belgium spent early a year without a government because neither major party could get enough others to help them to form a government.

Ve careful what you ask for - it could be worse.

 

[pecksniff]

In European countries that have proportional representation for their national parliaments, coalitions are almost essential because no single party wins enough seats to form a government on their own. Some of those coalitions can be very unstable as in Sweden recently when the coalition collapsed in hours and a new one in days.

Belgium spent early a year without a government because neither major party could get enough others to help them to form a government.

That problem only arises in parliamentary systems, where the legislature elects the executive. In a presidential or separation-of-powers system, where the executive is elected separately, there is no need to "form a government" in that sense.

 

[oggbashan]

That problem only arises in parliamentary systems, where the legislature elects the executive. In a presidential or separation-of-powers system, where the executive is elected separately, there is no need to "form a government" in that sense.

But your congress and senate might be unable to pass any legislation unless there was a majority and that could mean a coalition in both.

 

[GothTalk]

I don't have a problem with American democracy.

We aren't the UK, and I'm ok with that.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't have a problem with American democracy.

We aren't the UK, and I'm ok with that.

It seems to work fairly well for you, even if Trump didn't think so. It is different but not wrong. Proportional Representation wouldn't be better.

 

[WillJ8787]

It seems to work fairly well for you, even if Trump didn't think so. It is different but not wrong. Proportional Representation wouldn't be better.

As a younger person with Les experience.and wisdom, I thought proportional representation was a good answer to the "American Systems" problems.

Now that I'm older I agree with Ogg totally. Representational systems would further bog down decisions and legislation getting passed into law and further bog down governmental action. It would most likely make this very stagnant system we have currently worse.

Remember though, this some system in the USA was not always stagnant not to long ago. It is the parties and the folks who comprise them are creating the stagnation currently

I'm actually for term limits with the expansion of the service term. Senators seem to have the correct term length. Increase the Presidency to 6 years term and Congress to at least four, maybe six years.

The idea is to get things done. Longer limits without risk of having to campaign would help in my opinion.
.

 

[GothTalk]

I'm actually for term limits with the expansion of the service term. Senators seem to have the correct term length. Increase the Presidency to 6 years term and Congress to at least four, maybe six years.

The idea is to get things done. Longer limits without risk of having to campaign would help in my opinion.
.

Without limits but otherwise we agree on this....get the whole government on the same synced up election cycle, extend it a bit so they aren't campaigning 90% of the time.


As for the term limits, I don't think we should have them, if the people like their congress critter/POTUS they should be allowed to keep them. The election is the term limit, the chance for the people to say yay or nay.

 

[GothTalk]

It seems to work fairly well for you, even if Trump didn't think so. It is different but not wrong. Proportional Representation wouldn't be better.

Certainly not within the rest of our system.

We would need to totally restructure the federal government into a more parliamentary style system to make it functional.

Also we would have to become a unitary state not a union of states for the reasons of proportional representation to even make sense.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I watched PR in action in Brazil, and it was chaos. Scores of tiny parties arose that were nothing more than little cults of personality for the one or two politicians who started them knowing they'd be the ones to go to the legislature if their party got a tiny portion of the vote. Once these non-entitites ot to the legislature, they tried and failed to form coalitions with the dozens of other parties and failed.

 

[pecksniff]

But your congress and senate might be unable to pass any legislation unless there was a majority and that could mean a coalition in both.

Coalitions could be momentary and issue-specific -- e.g., the Libertarians would align with the Greens and the Socialists to legalize marijuana, but not to create single-payer health care.

 

[pecksniff]

I don't have a problem with American democracy.

We aren't the UK, and I'm ok with that.

The UK doesn't have PR either, though there have been efforts to introduce it. What distinguishes our political systems is the parliamentary system vs. the separation-of-powers system.

 

[pecksniff]

Also we would have to become a unitary state not a union of states for the reasons of proportional representation to even make sense.

Not at all -- we could keep the present system of federal and state legislatures while using PR to elect each. There would be some Greens and Socialists in the legislature even in the reddest states, some Libertarians in the bluest.

 

[GothTalk]

Not at all -- we could keep the present system of federal and state legislatures while using PR to elect each.

No, we can't because 32+ states are going to tell you to take your PR and go fuck yourself with it.

States being what they are currently understood and legally defined as being inherently makes what you're talking about doing (getting rid of American democracy, in the US of America) not possible.

Again, we would HAVE to get rid of states as anything other than administrative districts for a centralized government before you could do what you're talking about doing.

God luck.

There would be some Greens and Socialists in the legislature even in the reddest states, some Libertarians in the bluest.

So what? Wasted space.

The UK doesn't have PR either, though there have been efforts to introduce it.

Yes because they have a system PR would work within.

Which is why I brought it up.

What distinguishes our political systems is the parliamentary system vs. the separation-of-powers system.

Uh huh........ did you have some kind of point other than to further support what I've already stated???

 

[Comshaw]

But your congress and senate might be unable to pass any legislation unless there was a majority and that could mean a coalition in both.

Oh you mean they might not be able to muster a majority to pass legislation? Like having to have 60 votes out of 100 instead of a simple majority of 51? Like that?

Comshaw

 

[oggbashan]

Oh you mean they might not be able to muster a majority to pass legislation? Like having to have 60 votes out of 100 instead of a simple majority of 51? Like that?

Comshaw

No. Like both major parties having 47. They would need others to get to 51.

 

[pecksniff]

No, we can't because 32+ states are going to tell you to take your PR and go fuck yourself with it.

Don't see why. This isn't a D vs. R or a liberal vs. conservative thing. There is nothing un-American about PR -- the only reason we did not use it from the beginning is because it had not been invented in 1787.

So what? Wasted space.

Countervailing viewpoints. If, e.g., the California legislature were 10% Libertarians, they would rarely get their way on anything -- but they would be present in every committee, and they could be counted on to point out objections nobody else would think of to any tax or regulation or spending appropriation. That has value in the policymaking process.

States being what they are currently understood and legally defined as being inherently makes what you're talking about doing (getting rid of American democracy, in the US of America) not possible.

Again, we would HAVE to get rid of states as anything other than administrative districts for a centralized government before you could do what you're talking about doing.

God luck.

That makes no sense at all. We're not talking about centralized vs. decentralized government -- that is a different topic entirely. There is no reason why each state could not elect its legislature by PR, while retaining all of its present powers and functions.

Yes because they have a system PR would work within.

Which is why I brought it up.

To the contrary -- PR works better in a separation-of-powers system than in a parliamentary system, because there is no need to assemble a majority coalition in the legislature in order to "form a government."

 

[Cubantripod]

What you need to do is eliminate laws that make it harder for third parties to take shape and run for office. People don't vote for these parties and sometimes at all because these parties have no realistic chance at winning.

 

[Rightguide]

The UK doesn't have PR either, though there have been efforts to introduce it. What distinguishes our political systems is the parliamentary system vs. the separation-of-powers system.

Yeah ours is superior.

 

[pecksniff]

What you need to do is eliminate laws that make it harder for third parties to take shape and run for office. People don't vote for these parties and sometimes at all because these parties have no realistic chance at winning.

Well, that's a ballot-access problem. As pointed out in the OP, we could liberalize those laws -- we could make the presence of the Libertarian candidate on the ballot automatic, instead of requiring a certain number of petition signatures, a bar the major two parties do not have to clear -- but the mechanics of single-member-district representation would still produce a two-party system with all other parties marginalized.

 

[oggbashan]

Well, that's a ballot-access problem. As pointed out in the OP, we could liberalize those laws -- we could make the presence of the Libertarian candidate on the ballot automatic, instead of requiring a certain number of petition signatures, a bar the major two parties do not have to clear -- but the mechanics of single-member-district representation would still produce a two-party system with all other parties marginalized.

In the UK, anyone (not a lord or in jail) can stand in a parliamentary election. If they don't get one-third of the votes, they lose their deposit of £500. In by-elections caused by the death or resignation of an MP between general elections, there are many candidates. Usually, only the two major parties have a possibility, but if the electorate wants to send a V-sign to them, the third-largest party the Liberal Democrats might win - as they did in one last week.

But there were many other candidates, some thinking it was worth £500 to publicize a particular issue. they know they won't win but they will get some media coverage.

 

[GothTalk]

Don't see why. This isn't a D vs. R or a liberal vs. conservative thing.

Except it is.

You'll get no R's liberals or conservatives supporting a switch to PR.

Only hard leftist.

There is nothing un-American about PR

Yes there is, it's not the system we use.

Just like your claims there is nothing un-American about Communism and no Bolshevik would be anti-American no matter how many of the bourgeoisies they murdered in the streets.....2+2 =/=9 either.

That makes no sense at all.

Then explain to me how you plan to convince the super majority of states, which are red to switch to write up and ratify and amendment making the USA a PR.

We're not talking about centralized vs. decentralized government -- that is a different topic entirely.

Except we are. Berceuse that's the system you have to operate in to get your PR.

That means you're not getting PR

To the contrary -- PR works better in a separation-of-powers system than in a parliamentary system, because there is no need to assemble a majority coalition in the legislature in order to "form a government."

2+2=9!!!!!!!

Sure peck...we believe you!!

 

[pecksniff]

Except it is.

You'll get no R's liberals or conservatives supporting a switch to PR.

Only hard leftist.

Any member of the Libertarian Party, or of the paleoconservative Constitution Party, or of Pat Buchanan's America First Party (which I think is now defunct, but the potential for revival is there), would want PR.

Yes there is, it's not the system we use.

One might have raised that objection to letting women vote.

Then explain to me how you plan to convince the super majority of states, which are red to switch to write up and ratify and amendment making the USA a PR.

Actually, I've seen a legal analysis showing that no constitutional amendment would be necessary to adopt PR for the House of Representatives -- ordinary legislation would do it. (The Senate is a different matter.)

Now, adoption of PR at the state level would almost certainly have to come first, in order of time, and would depend on the particular details of each state's constitution.

Except we are. Berceuse that's the system you have to operate in to get your PR.

How? How does PR require a unitary system?

 

[pecksniff]

Some people fear moving from a two-party system to a multiparty system because they see it as empowering extremists.

But I see it as empowering the center.

What a proportional representation system does is make the elected representatives more exactly represent the range of political views of the voters -- and a lot of people are centrists.

So, here's a possible scenario: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, and neither has enough votes to form a majority, no bill can ever pass Congress or any state legislature without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

 

[GothTalk]

Any member of the Libertarian Party, or of the paleoconservative Constitution Party, or of Pat Buchanan's America First Party (which I think is now defunct, but the potential for revival is there), would want PR.

And any member of the peoples party or progressive caucus is absolutely fine with allowing poor people to starve our of respect for private property!!

What you posted sounds just as insane. You're projecting bullshit.

One might have raised that objection to letting women vote.

False equivalency.

Actually, I've seen a legal analysis showing that no constitutional amendment would be necessary to adopt PR for the House of Representatives -- ordinary legislation would do it. (The Senate is a different matter.)

And so would forcing the super majority of states that are going to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Now, adoption of PR at the state level would almost certainly have to come first, in order of time, and would depend on the particular details of each state's constitution.

No fucking shit Sherlock.

How? How does PR require a unitary system?

43 states tell you go fuck yourself with your PR bullshit.

What do you do now peck??

This is why you will require a unitary state PRIOR to totally shit canning American Democracy in America.