Can a country be a democracy without proportional representation?

[renard_ruse]

I'm thinking no.

 

[renard_ruse]

I've come to the conclusion that FPP (First Past the Post) electoral systems are not democratic systems. They are semi-dictatorships at best.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I've come to the conclusion that FPP (First Past the Post) electoral systems are not democratic systems. They are semi-dictatorships at best.

Well, they do narrow the range of choices and force everybody who wants to be a political player into one of two "big tent" parties. Because of the mechanics of the system. In my opinion, a multiparty system would be better for America than a two-party system. And PR would make that possible.

But . . . I'm not sure you'd like the result, renard. I think America's political center-of-gravity in a PR/multiparty system might be just a bit further left than it is now.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Instant-runoff voting and electoral fusion would also help.

 

[Liar]

It's not often that I agree with renard ruse on something. Better mark the calendar.

The idea behind FPP, as the gentleman so aptly calls it, is that everyone should have "their guy" in the legislative body, someone looking out for the interrests of the local area.

The problem is that looking out for the district doesn't translate well into what national policy-making is about these days.

 

[Sean Renaud]

When did we become a Democracy?

 

[Liar]

Well, they do narrow the range of choices and force everybody who wants to be a political player into one of two "big tent" parties. Because of the mechanics of the system. In my opinion, a multiparty system would be better for America than a two-party system. And PR would make that possible.

But . . . I'm not sure you'd like the result, renard. I think America's political center-of-gravity in a PR/multiparty system might be just a bit further left than it is now.

Perhaps. But the power would gravitate towards the middle.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Perhaps. But the power would gravitate towards the middle.

I think the middle is a few notches left of where we pretend it is because a few dozen empty states get a lot more say than there populations would warrant under a less insane system.

 

[Liar]

When did we become a Democracy?

It's all about you, isn' t it?

 

[Sean Renaud]

No Herr Squirrel, I'm quite willing to share the spot light. I was just under the mistaken belief that America was a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy but as Renard Ruse, miles and koalabear constantly remind me I'm the dumbest sonbitch ever to post on Lit.

 

[oggbashan]

Which proportional representation system?

There are several.

 

[CHNOPS]

"On Liberty" has come and gone by now.

We have proportional representation in the House and (therefore) the Electoral College. We have quantized representation in the Senate. The former ensures that local interests are heard, the latter ensures that even the least populous state has an equal seat at the table with even the most. In theory, those two elements work as a multiplier so that the most voices possible are taken into account. (In a solely proportional-representation system, New York, Texas and California would be dominating the national legislative agenda at the expense of the other 54 states.)

It's not a perfect system. There is no perfect Democracy, without every citizen voting on every law, every time. And even then, the laws need to be proposed, written and implemented by SOMEONE. There will always be a mediator, and we will always dislike them for representing anyone other than ourselves.

I like Parliamentary Democracy, and think it's a frankly a better solution for a country our size. But it comes with the same number of problems, and the same tendency toward gridlock--perhaps worse.

The simplest solution is a third party. The presence of a third party always moves the conversation toward populism. Much of the country's current dysfunction would be addressed simply by the addition of a third voice at the table. Which is precisely why the current parties are afraid of one.

 

[killallhippies]

i just groaned.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"On Liberty" has come and gone by now.

We have proportional representation in the House . . .

No, we don't. You do not seem to understand what PR means.

What we have now is called a "first-past-the-post/winner-take-all" system combined with a "single-member-district" system: The legislature's jurisdictional territory is divided into geographic districts of roughly equal population, and each district elects one representative by majority-or-plurality vote. ("Plurality" meaning you can win the seat with fewer than 50% of the votes cast, so long as you get more votes than any other candidate for the seat.) That's the system we use to elect the House, every state legislature, and most other multimember policymaking bodies. (Some county commissions and city councils are elected "at large," which is less democratic still -- that's another discussion.)

The problem with that electoral system, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that it naturally forces a two-party political system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election to the state legislature, 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.

Under a proportional representation system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another -- there are several forms), OTOH, if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.

Get it now?

Under our present FPTP/SMD system, 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.

First Party System: Federalists v. Democratic-Republicans.

Era of Good Feelings: Democrats.

Second Party System: Democrats v. Whigs.

Third Party System: Democrats v. Republicans.

Fourth Party System: Democrats v. Republicans.

Fifth Party System: Democrats v. Republicans.

Now, if you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Then we could have a multi-party system. Libertarians could run as Libertarians; get their own seats and their own Libertarian Caucus in Congress; and then align/vote with the Republicans or the Democrats or the Greens depending on the specific issue of the moment. Probably they would vote with the Dems on social issues and the Pubs on economic issues, most of the time. As it is now, Congress has room only for small-l-libertarian Republicans who are pressured to toe the GOP line on everything all the time.

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.

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.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I like Parliamentary Democracy . . .

N.B.: We don't have that, either. (Sometime I think we should) We have representative (as opposed to direct) democracy, but not in parliamentary form.

A parliamentary system is one where the executive (prime minister and cabinet -- what they call the "government" the UK; we would call it the "administration") is in effect chosen by and answerable to the legislature. The British invented (or, fairer to say, evolved) that system, and a lot of countries worldwide have copied it. It has the advantage that there is never any gridlock as between the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, because the parliament chose the government, and, if it grows dissatisfied its performance or direction, will call a "vote of no confidence" and new elections to parliament. A parliamentary system usually requires a ceremonial head-of-state (monarch or president) who is separate from and theoretically above the head-of-government (prime minister or premier).

A presidential or separation-of-powers system is an American invention -- the executive (head-of-state and head-of-government in one) is separately elected from the legislature (usually for a time-fixed term) and has its own independent mandate. (It's based, I believe, on the system the State of New York had in place at the time of the Constitutional Convention.) This system also has been widely copied worldwide, and, of course, in every state of the Union (all state governors are separately elected). In Federalist 51, James Madison made a strong case that this system is a bulwark against tyranny because the separate branches can check-and-balance each other; but, the UK's parliamentary system has not led to tyranny, has it?

The above, BTW, has nothing to do with whether the legislative assembly is elected by proportional representation or single-member-districts or otherwise; that's a different question.

 

[CHNOPS]

N.B.: We don't have that, either. (Sometime I think we should) We have representative (as opposed to direct) democracy, but not in parliamentary form.

A parliamentary system is one where the executive (prime minister and cabinet -- what they call the "government" the UK; we would call it the "administration") is in effect chosen by and answerable to the legislature. The British invented (or, fairer to say, evolved) that system, and a lot of countries worldwide have copied it. It has the advantage that there is never any gridlock as between the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, because the parliament chose the government, and, if it grows dissatisfied its performance or direction, will call a "vote of no confidence" and new elections to parliament. A parliamentary system usually requires a ceremonial head-of-state (monarch or president) who is separate from and theoretically above the head-of-government (prime minister or premier).

A presidential or separation-of-powers system is an American invention -- the executive (head-of-state and head-of-government in one) is separately elected from the legislature (usually for a time-fixed term) and has its own independent mandate. This system also has been widely copied worldwide, and, of course, in every state of the Union (all state governors are separately elected). In Federalist 51, James Madison made a strong case that this system is a bulwark against tyranny because the separate branches can check-and-balance each other; but, the UK's parliamentary system has not led to tyranny, has it?

The above, BTW, has nothing to do with whether the legislative assembly is elected by proportional representation or single-member-districts or otherwise; that's a different question.

Yes, I know we don't have that, but thanks for the condescending and uncomprehending assumption to the contrary.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, I know we don't have that, but thanks for the condescending and uncomprehending assumption to the contrary.

You deserved it, and you're welcome.

 

[kbate]

Yes, I know we don't have that, but thanks for the condescending and uncomprehending assumption to the contrary.

He got a great opportunity to demonstrate his google and wikipedia skillz. It was an astounding display of learned net searching.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If we had PR, and a multiparty system, I think the emergent lineup in Congress might look something like this:

Libertarian Party: libertarian -- consistently, on economic and social issues, but probably less radically ideological than it is now; even with PR it would have to moderate somewhat to hope to win even 5-10% of the vote.

Constitution Party: Social-religious conservative and paleoconservative; anti-abortion, pro-school-prayer, etc.; nativist and anti-immigrant; economic-populist -- trade-protectionist, anti-big-biz, anti-Wall-Street, anti-Fed; isolationist/pacifist in foreign/military policy. (White Nationalists would find their home in this one -- they are not numerous enough to form a successful party of their own even in a PR system, and this would be the nearest thing to their world-view.)

Republican Party: The remnant after the libertarians and paleocons exit. Pro-big-business-interests; hawkish-neoconservative in foreign/military policy.

Democratic Party: The remnant after the lefties exit, see below. Moderately liberal, meaning neoliberal, trade-globalist -- pro-biz like the Republicans, but moderately pro-welfare-state; liberal-internationalist in foreign/military policy.

Green Party: Environmentalist, decentralist, pacifist, etc.

Working Families Party: Social-democratic/progressive; pro-organized-labor; sympathetic with the Greens, but different from the Greens in their emphasis. (Not a socialist party, but actual socialists -- the sort who want socialism instead of capitalism -- would find their home in this one, not being numerous enough to go it alone even in a PR system.)

It would certainly make for a more interesting Congress, wouldn't it? Every committee would have representatives from every party in it.

Of course, there would be no majority party in Congress -- not ever again, probably -- so, no bill would get passed unless two or more parties got behind it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

E.g.: Wanna legalize pot? Fine, at least with this system you can get that bill to the floor; the Libertarians will sponsor it and the Greens will (for this issue, at least) be right with them; but you'll have to craft a case to sell it to a majority.

 

[CHNOPS]

You deserved it, and you're welcome.

No link offsite to a web definition of "it"?

 

[CHNOPS]

Also, for record: I did tank the term 'proportional representation," and don't blame pointless for groaning.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Support FairVote.org!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its easier to simply increase the number of Reps in the House.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Its easier to simply increase the number of Reps in the House.

If that's the only change, they'll still be all-Republicrats.

 

[renard_ruse]

Perhaps. But the power would gravitate towards the middle.

No, power would gravitate in direct proportion to what the entire voting public wants. No view would be left out, ideally, and compromises would have to be reached.

In fact, the arrogant self-styled "moderates" who pretty much run everything today would be the big losers. That's why the establishment won't allow PR.