What if U.S. government represented the will of the people (more precisely)?

[KingOrfeo]

]"[legislatures in the United States] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them." -- John Adams

"... the portrait is excellent in proportion to its being a good likeness,...the legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society... the faithful echo of the voices of the people." -- James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention

"The Electors [voters] who are on a different side in party politics from the local majority are unrepresented... [This system] is diametrically opposed to the first principle of democracy, representation in proportion to numbers." -- John Stuart Mill, in Considerations on Representative Government (1861)

I have occassionally argued here that a multiparty system is better for America than a two-party system. One reason is that it produces a legislature/government that is nearer to a "miniature portrait" of the people than a distorting funhouse mirror like we've got now.

But, what if we the people actually were governed by a "miniature portrait" of our collective self?

Here's the full-sized portrait: The 2011 version of the Pew Political Typology, which divides the American people, according to their political views/behavior, into nine categories:

Staunch Conservatives
9% OF ADULT POPULATION /11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: This extremely partisan Republican group is strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are highly engaged in politics, most (72%) agree with the Tea Party, 54% regularly watch Fox News, and nearly half (47%) believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S.
Defining values: Extremely critical of the federal government and supportive of sharply limited government. Pro-business and strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Highly religious; most say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.

<snip>

Main Street Republicans
11% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: Concentrated in the South and Midwest. Main Street Republicans differ from Staunch Conservatives in the degree of their conservatism and in their skepticism about business. They are socially and fiscally conservative but supportive of government efforts to protect the environment.
Defining values: Highly critical of government. Very religious and strongly committed to traditional social values. Generally negative about immigrants and mostly opposed to social welfare programs. But much less enamored of business than Staunch Conservatives, and less supportive of an assertive foreign policy.

<snip>

Libertarians
9% OF ADULT POPULATION /10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: This Republican-oriented, predominantly male group mostly conforms to the classic profile of the libertarian in its combination of strong economic conservatism and relatively liberal views on social issues. Much less religious than other GOP-oriented groups, Libertarians are relatively comfortable financially– nearly half (46%) say they are professional or business class, among the highest of the typology groups.
Defining values: Highly critical of government. Disapprove of social welfare programs. Pro-business and strongly opposed to regulation. Accepting of homosexuality. Moderate views about immigrants compared with other Republican-oriented groups.

<snip>

Disaffecteds
11% OF ADULT POPULATION /11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: The most financially stressed of the eight typology groups, Disaffecteds are very critical of both business and government. They are sympathetic to the poor and supportive of social welfare programs. Most are skeptical about immigrants and doubtful that the U.S. can solve its current problems. They are pessimistic about their own financial future.
Defining values: A majority believe that the government is wasteful and inefficient and that regulation does more harm than good. But nearly all say too much power is concentrated in a few companies. Religious and socially conservative.

<snip>

Post-Moderns
13% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: Well-educated and financially comfortable. Post-Moderns are supportive of many aspects of government though they take conservative positions on questions about racial policy and the social safety net. Very liberal on social issues. Post-Moderns were strong supporters of Barack Obama in 2008, but turned out at far lower rates in 2010.
Defining values: Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection. Favor the use of diplomacy rather than military force to ensure peace. Generally positive about immigrants and their contributions to society.

<snip>

New Coalition Democrats
10% OF ADULT POPULATION /9% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: This majority-minority group is highly religious and financially stressed. They are generally upbeat about both the country’s ability to solve problems and an individual’s ability to get ahead through hard work.
Defining values: Generally supportive of government, but divided over expanding the social safety net. Reflecting their own diverse makeup, they are pro-immigrant. Socially conservative, about as many say homosexuality should be discouraged as say it should be accepted.

<snip>

Hard-Pressed Democrats
13% OF ADULT POPULATION /15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: This largely blue-collar Democratic group is struggling financially and is generally cynical about government. Nearly half (47%) expect that they will not earn enough to lead the kind of life they want. Socially conservative and very religious.
Defining values: Critical of both business and government. View immigrants as an economic burden and a cultural threat. Supportive of environmental protection in general but concerned about the economic impact of environmental laws and regulations.

<snip>

Solid Liberals
14% OF ADULT POPULATION /16% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: Politically engaged, Solid Liberals are strongly pro-government and hold liberal positions across the full range of political issues. They are one of the most secular groups. Two-thirds (67%) say they disagree with the Tea Party.
Defining values: Very supportive of regulation, environmental protection and government assistance to the poor. Socially tolerant, supportive of the growing racial and ethnic diversity of the country. A majority (59%) say that religion is not that important to them.

<snip>

Bystanders
10% OF ADULT POPULATION /0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Basic Description: Defined by their disengagement from the political process, either by choice or because they are ineligible to vote. They are highly unlikely to vote (61% say they seldom vote, and 39% volunteer that they never vote; none are currently registered to vote). Most follow government and public affairs only now and then (42%) or hardly at all (23%).
Who they are: Bystanders are overwhelmingly young (51% are under 30) and nearly half are Latino (38%) or black (9%). A third (33%) are first- or second-generation Americans. They are diverse in their political views though they lean Democratic, and their values more often align with the Democratic than the Republican groups. They also have much more favorable attitudes about the Democratic Party and its political figures than about the Republican Party. More than half (54%) have incomes under $30,000 annually. Nearly two-thirds (64%) report that they or someone in their household were unemployed in the past year; 72% have only a high school education or less.

These are the people, politically -- that is, if you were to take a completely random sample of 1,000 Americans, their political views would break down more or less as above. It's inclusive -- there are Communists and Socialists in America, but they don't show here, they would be merely subsets of the Solid Liberals; doctrinaire Objectivists and the radical faction of the LP would be subsets of Libertarians; hardcore White Nationalists and fascists would be subsets of the Staunch Conservatives, and so on.

Now, this is a thought experiment with grossly simplified assumptions, like a high-school physics problem where you assume frictionless gears. Assume:

1. America adopts a pure party-list proportional representation system for electing all multi-member policymaking bodies from Congress to your school board.

2. Each of the typology groups listed above, except for the Bystanders (a wild card, their votes up for grabs to anyone who can motivate them), forms exactly one political party (yes, I know "The Disaffected Party" is a dumb name, bear with me, it's just a thought experiment) which appeals to all and only those voters in that typology group.

3. In the next election, each party gets 100% turnout and support from its present base of registered voters, so the resulting eight-party Congress is 11% Staunch Conservative, 10% Libertarian, and so on -- exact same result as if Congress were filled by a lottery, except these members are still career statescritters, not random shlubs. (Whether Congress should be filled by lottery, like jury duty, is a different debate.)

4. For electing single-member offices like the presidency, the U.S. also adopts electoral fusion, which allows two or more parties to join forces behind one candidate, and instant-runoff voting, which eliminates the "spoiler" problem of multi-candidate elections and assures that the ultimate winner will have a majority mandate by a broad definition of such. Thus, the winning president might be the coalition candidate of all the leftists, or all the rightists, or all the centrists broadly defined.

No majority party in Congress -- every committee would have to include members from each of the eight parties. As at present, nothing gets done unless you can marshal a majority of votes behind it.

What kinds of public policies would such a political system likely produce? How would it differ from what we've got now?

 

[koalabear]

Special interests run the country. It's not likely to change soon.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I have a social circle, that I believe to be fairly representative of many people, and none of us (myself included) would fit into any of those pigeon holes. Some egg-head with too much time on his hands seems to be trying to justify his Adjunct Professorship.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Special interests run the country. It's not likely to change soon.

Thank you, Jesus, someone besides me gets it.

Once you embrace this fact (special interests run the show) the rest falls into place.

Both political parties lick the boots and asses of special interests.

 

[koalabear]

Thank you, Jesus, someone besides me gets it.

Once you embrace this fact (special interests run the show) the rest falls into place.

Both political parties lick the boots and asses of special interests.

Basically Americans are stupid, they argue for a party when they should be arguing for America.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have a social circle, that I believe to be fairly representative of many people, and none of us (myself included) would fit into any of those pigeon holes. Some egg-head with too much time on his hands seems to be trying to justify his Adjunct Professorship.

[shrug] The Pew Research Center is not "some egg-head with too much time on his hands." Take the quiz, you'll probably find there's one category that fits you better than the other eight.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Special interests run the country. It's not likely to change soon.

I know, I know. Thought experiment, dude. Just assume the frictionless gears, etc., and embrace the hypothetical, and do Litsterish things to it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

[shrug] The Pew Research Center is not "some egg-head with too much time on his hands." Take the quiz, you'll probably find there's one category that fits you better than the other eight.

"Better then" is the problem. Each human is unique and those who try to install logical boarders in an illogical system contribute nothing to the advancement of humanity.

I'm certain they are Socialists.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

"Better then" is the problem. Each human is unique and those who try to install logical boarders in an illogical system contribute nothing to the advancement of humanity.

I'm certain they are Socialists.

Besides, logical boarders always try to convince you that they should be allowed to stay for free.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I looked at the little quiz, as I was requested to do. The very first question invalidates the entire process (and who died and made Pew the God of determining how many types there are).


Quiz
To identify your typology group, select one response from each of the paired statements below. Even if neither statement is exactly right, choose the response that comes closest to your views.


1. Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return

Or

2. Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently



I disagree with the premise that poor people either have it easy, or they have it hard. I further disagree with the position that either of the above fallacies are either caused, or could be cured depending on the level of governmental intervention.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Besides, logical boarders always try to convince you that they should be allowed to stay for free.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Besides, logical boarders always try to convince you that they should be allowed to stay for free.

But, to their credit, those logical boarders aren't hysterical and always use measured reason when trying to convince you. And they bring their own bedsheets. Pretty logical if you ask me.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"Better then" is the problem. Each human is unique and those who try to install logical boarders in an illogical system contribute nothing to the advancement of humanity.

Of course every human is unique. That doesn't mean trying to sort us out according to types in this or that system is meaningless or futile or -- which you seem to be saying -- pernicious. That's nonsense. There's a whole science of demographics, and several different classificatory schemes in psychology.

Bear in mind, also, that sorting out Americans by their political views based on poll results is a very different thing from trying to organize political views as such into some kind of logical scheme finer than "left-right." There have been various attempts to do that. They're all open to criticism, but at any rate they're certainly not meaningless or futile or pernicious, either.

I'm certain they are Socialists.

The reverse, if anything. It is sponsored and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts:

The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, seven charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin—the adult sons and daughters of Sunoco founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. The Trusts is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an office in Washington, D.C.

Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is rigorously non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won." Joseph N. Pew, Jr., called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S. businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."[2]

Most of the early beneficiaries were such conservative organizations as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute,[3][4] although other beneficiaries included a cancer research institute, a museum, higher education, the American Red Cross, and historically black colleges. For many years, the Trusts tended to fund charities and conservative causes in Philadelphia.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I looked at the little quiz, as I was requested to do. The very first question invalidates the entire process (and who died and made Pew the God of determining how many types there are).


Quiz
To identify your typology group, select one response from each of the paired statements below. Even if neither statement is exactly right, choose the response that comes closest to your views.


1. Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return

Or

2. Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently



I disagree with the premise that poor people either have it easy, or they have it hard. I further disagree with the position that either of the above fallacies are either caused, or could be cured depending on the level of governmental intervention.

To be moderately serious for a millisecond...I have the same gripe with tests like those. They're almost always built on existing presumptions that I don't necessarily think are valid (for me). So even picking the one that's ''more true" just means, 'which one has rhetorically fewer flaws, regardless of meaning.' Not a very meaningful measure.

 

[JohnnySavage]

To be moderately serious for a millisecond...I have the same gripe with tests like those. They're almost always built on existing presumptions that I don't necessarily think are valid (for me). So even picking the one that's ''more true" just means, 'which one has rhetorically fewer flaws, regardless of meaning.' Not a very meaningful measure.

You are very wise.

And Oreo has no sense of humor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Bottomline is there are two groups of people, one group believes that what they create is their property, the 2nd group believes that what you create is their property.

This covers all the combinations and permutations.

 

[KingOrfeo]

To be moderately serious for a millisecond...I have the same gripe with tests like those. They're almost always built on existing presumptions that I don't necessarily think are valid (for me). So even picking the one that's ''more true" just means, 'which one has rhetorically fewer flaws, regardless of meaning.' Not a very meaningful measure.

[shrug] Think of it as like an IQ test or a Myers-Briggs personality test. The questions don't have to mean anything, the point of them is to find out something about you. Just what the test is measuring (what does "IQ" mean, anyway? -- see Howard Gardners' theory of multiple intelligences) is debatable, but you know it's measuring something, some stable personal psychological characteristic, in the sense that if you take two different well-designed IQ tests or two different well-designed Myers-Briggs tests several years apart, you will get roughly the same results. Same with your politics -- they might change a lot over the course of your life, but not over the course of five years, and they are measurable and classifiable.

In the big picture, which is what this thread is about, the Pew Typology is, like I said, "the full-sized portrait." This is what the American people are and believe and think, politically; this is their range of viewpoints. It is by no means a perfect and static picture, nor meant to be -- the Center revises it every few years, just as the shape of American society changes continuously. You might quibble with the details or the line-drawing, but, so far as we can speak of anything with certainty in polling results, it is clearly the case that 9% of Americans and 11% of registered voters -- not much more, not much less -- have Staunch Conservative views as the typology defines them, and so on. Your portrait of George Washington might be worse or better than mine -- what matters is that each is recognizable as George Washington and not a goat or something. The Pew Political Typology is no goat.

So, don't fight the hypothetical: If we had a Congress more or less like what is described in the OP, what would it do?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I looked at the little quiz, as I was requested to do. The very first question invalidates the entire process . . .

No, it doesn't. If it is a question you would rather not answer either way, that says something about you. That's the whole point of it. This ain't a push-poll.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Solid Liberal

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm Post-Modern

 

[KingOrfeo]

Bottomline is there are two groups of people, one group believes that what they create is their property, the 2nd group believes that what you create is their property.

This covers all the combinations and permutations.

"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say, 'There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say there are two kinds of people in the world, and the other kind,' and those who don't say. Well, and then there's me."

-- "Bob" during his mail fraud trial, 1978

 

[KingOrfeo]

You might quibble with the details or the line-drawing, but, so far as we can speak of anything with certainty in polling results, it is clearly the case that 9% of Americans and 11% of registered voters -- not much more, not much less -- have Staunch Conservative views as the typology defines them, and so on.

Waitaminnit -- is that the part that is sticking in so many craws here?!