Can a country be a democracy without proportional representation?

[renard_ruse]

I don't praise Israel much, but I feel we can learn from them on their electoral system.

 

[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.

So, in such a system, what Litsters would go with what party? I'd be Working Families. I'm thinking renard_ruse and JAMESBJOHNSON would go Consitution, but vetteman would still be Republican.

 

[njlauren]

The US is not a straight democracy , it is a representative republic, and many of the elements in the consitution were designed to be anti democratic for the very real reason the founders feared democracy or 'mob rule'..the checks and balances were part of that, the judiciary, but even in election this was true.

-Senators were not originally elected, they were appointed (changed by amending the constitution)
-In the electoral college, electors do not have to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, it was designed so if the 'people' elected someone they felt was a menace, electors could overturn that

-Senators were apportioned 2/state, which violates 1 person, 1 vote. One of the reasons for the civil war was the senate, because the number of southern/confederate leaning states were higher, had more power in the senate, even though by population they were far outweighed, it meant there couldn't be a solution to slavery that worked no matter how hard they tried.

-The electoral system could be fair, but the constitution allows it to be gamed. How electors are apportioned is up to the states and whichever party holds dominant force. Some states are winners take all, which means you can win 50-49% and get all the electors; in another state you would get 49% (or if done by district, a different take on it.)...the problem is it isn't uniform.

What happens is what we see, elections often come down to a couple of counties in Ohio that may or may not reflect much of the rest of the country. I live in a state considered "blue" and I never see presidential ads or much campaigning.

If the electoral system was proportional across the country, it would be more democratic and the needs of farmers in some Ohio county would count as much as the needs of people in my county I suspect it would take a lot of bullshit out of elections, like social issues (social issues only are cared about by roughly 20% of the population, yet tend to dominate the swing areas where elections seems to be decided)...in a country worried about the economy, everyone puts jobs first, we wouldn't have the idiocy over same sex marriage or abortion being major campaign issues.

Either that, or get rid of the electoral system and make it one man/1 vote, but you will see screaming through most of "real america' as defined by Sarah Palin and a good part of the GOP conservative wing, who depend on electoral irregularity to give them the influence they have.