Would you favor a Proportional system of Representation over Districting?

[CoffeePlease1947]

I was thinking would it not be better to get rid of the Districting of States for Senators and Congresstional districts and simply have a system of proportional representation?
Think about this. Districting allows for the controlling party to gerrymander the districts like they did in Texas. The minority can keep power by moving all the Democrats into a few districts and stay in power against the will of the people or the majority. It can also keep the minority an even smaller minority in Representation.
Also, in a Representative Democracy, does it not make sense to have all peoples voices heard. If 2.5% of the population is Green, 2.5% is Libretarian, and 1% make up other parties, should they not have 2.5%, 2.5% and 1% of the vote respectively?
Just think about how many Libertarians would vote with the Dems and Greens on many of Bush's policies. But we lose because Libertarians feel it is a choice between the Dem and Repug candidate, so they choose the Repug.
Likewise, many Greens vote Dem because they don't want to split the vote.
Here is how I would redo the system.
1) Combine the houses into one body of about 500 members.
2) People vote in the party primary of their choice to choose a total of 500 people in the event that they got 100% of the vote.
3) People go to the polls and vote for the Party they want.
4) If a party gets 40% of the vote they get 40% of the seats, or 200 seats. The candidates that got the 200 most votes take those seats. If a party gets 2% of the vote they get 10 seats. The 10 candidates that got the mosts votes get those seats.

Obviously choosing 500 candidates in the primary would be difficult to do. So there would have to be a limit. Candidates could also just campaign regionally. That means that someone could just campaign in New York and New Jersey and hope to get enough votes to place high enough on the ballot to win a seat in the General Election.

For the Presidential election I would say go on the popular vote. In the event that it cannot be decided, computer errors, ballot problems etc, than fall back on the electoral college. I would however have runoffs so that the person that gets into the office gets atleast 50% of the vote. I think they should have this so they can governor with the will of the majority.

If Trent Lott has control over policy that I have to live with should I not be able to vote for or against him? This system would allow us to do that.

I think this would get rid of all the tricks that politicans try to pull. It would also stop the Repugs from doing other things.

Another point is that their would be less of a motive to rig elections.

I also think this prevents the census from being so important. If 500,000 people move into a state, they are not given representation until up to 10 years later.

Which system to you favor, the districting like we have now where games can be played, or a proportional system that allows people one vote per person regardless of where and when they live?

Mike

[LWolf]

1. I am interested in proportional representation.

I'd need data from places that have used it, and some time to consider it, before I supported the idea.

I am a supporter of IRV.

[bryant69]

2. This would stop the winner take all which leads to

people not getting represented. I mean if you are conservative and live in a liberal district or liberal and live in a conservative district, well your vote doesn't matter. This way everybody would get what they wanted.

Bryant

Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Brucey]

3. The United States system of government

has been around for over 200 years. Many countries have been formed in that period of time. None of them have adopted our system. Why not? Parliament, or some other proportional system is much more fair. I prefer proportional. At least people in the minority would get some representation. Winner take all is preposterous, especially when the "winner" does not even have 50% in many cases, as happened in the last two governor elections in Minnesota, the 2000 Presidential election, the recent California recall, etc., etc. We are being represented by people who were not fairly elected even by a majority! The minority never get representation... and today, the majority often don't either!

[7th_Sephiroth]

4. why cant we just

count the votes and the winner takes all

[CoffeePlease1947]

5. How would you feel if you boss made this proposal:

"The person that does the MOST work gets everyone's pay for that day"?
You would most likely object. Why should you not get your share of what you earned for the day.

Likewise, why should the 10 people out of a hundred surrender their views, ideals, and principles on every issue.

One person, one vote. Not one person, one vote, one time.

Every one should be heard and valued in every decision that we make.

Mike

[SharonAnn]

35. Or this, "The person that I decide did the most work gets

everybody's pay for that day."

That way there'd be no need to actualy measure or count anything. It could just be a judgement.

[rogerashton]

6. While I would favor

some proportional representation scheme over the present muddle (Google "Gerrymander") there are other possibilities.

1) At large election. Have each state elect its representatives at large. Say, in Pennsylvania, we have 19 reps. All candidates run in a state-wide election and everyone has one vote. The 19 with the highest totals become the 19 representatives. In PA, the break-point for election would be something less than 5% of the vote, so each representative would represent the 4% or so who voted for her. (In some smaller districts, we probably have representatives who got the vote of less than 2% of the state's voters, as things are now). It would not matter if the 4% were widely distributed across the state, small minorities in their respective communities, as it does now. Of course, some representatives would be speaking for many more voters than others, perhaps to an even greater extent than now.

2) Randomocracy. Choose the 19 by lot from a list of all eligible citizens, in such a way that every eligible citizen has an equal chance. (I suppose Jehova's Witnesses and Anarchists would have to be allowed to be excluded as conscientious objectors.)

I lean toward randomocracy -- I am persuaded that you would get a more representative assembly that way than by any election method.

[Frodo]

7. Won't happen - Can't happen

It dilutes the power of the smaller states. And, whether that is fair or not, would require their support to pass.

The system can only be changed (at the level you propose) by a constitutional amendment. Which, of course, requires 2/3 of the states to ratify. FAR more than 1/3 of the states would see their influence dimminish substantially and could never support it. Right or wrong, RI is never going to vote to cut their political influence by 90%.

[CoffeePlease1947]

10. Wow, you are bit off, did you read what I said?

Actually, Rhode Island would be better off with it. They get to vote for many more Representatives.

Further, I wish to point out that "states" don't have opinions or thoughts on an issue. The people in the state do. Most people can not even name their two senators. People move from state to state. They don't live in log houses and reside there for 3 generations like we did in the past. People would gladly vote for the party and have someone represent them than vote for a person from their state that doesn't represent them.
Any state that votes souly for one candidate on the major ticket of repug or Dem could get their favorite person in and still be able to cast votes for others.

Voting for 20-50 senators if better than only 2 for a state? Which ones?

Mike

[Frodo]

12. Bzzzzz. Wrong.

They would get to vote for more representatives? But without enough voice to determine a single one of them.

And that's a nice sentiment, but unrealistic. When a state has to vote for an ammendment, you need substatial majorities of each body. And as much as people move around, you would obviously be shocked at how the vast majority of the people in New Hampshire really do think they aren't the same (or have the same interests) as people in Georgia. And yes, a Democrat in North Carolina would rather have another NC Dem representing them than one from San Francisco.

[CoffeePlease1947]

13. Frodo, wrong again, sorry

A state like RI has about 0.05% of the population. A 500 member senate would only need 0.01% percent (50% of 2%) of the vote to land one seat. They get 4 seats, 2 Senate and 2 House. 5 seats is better than 4 last I checked.

Mike

[Frodo]

17. Don't be ridiculous.

If you think that any state is going to vote 100% for a single candidate you're smoking something funny. But even accepting your theory, some participation in 1% of the representatives (5/500) of a SINGLE house is not at all like 100% control of 2% of the upper house of a bicameral legislature (2/100).

You also completely ignore how those 500 members would be selected by each party (and, of course, ignore third parties). How do these people get on the ballot? And how is one voter supposed to get to know >1,000 candidates for office to know who to support?

Lastly, and most importantly, you forget the cardinal rule of politics: All politics is local!. You want to make it all national. You assume that all anyone cares about is which party a particular person belongs to. People from Vermont want to know how someone leans on maple tree farmers while people in NC care about tobacco subsidies. The interests of people in different parts of the country are different.

To recap: You will NEVER get the small states to even peek at your idea. Therefore it can NEVER happen.

[CoffeePlease1947]

25. How about this Frodo

Keep the Senate as is. Make the House proportional and make it 500 members.

Now do you think that the States would object? Congress is based on one person one vote. Small states would still have their advantages.

Senators would look after the areas or districts, House would vote on ideological lines.

Mike

[sangh0]

28. CP, read your history!

The reason why the Framers structured our elections they way they did was precisely because of the tensions between states with large populations and those with small populations. This is the stuff of elementary school history lessons and is deeply embedded in the minds of millions of Americans. While the idea of proportional elections does have it's benefits, even for the small states, it is unreasonable to think that a dispute of historic proportions is simply going to be forgotten and unmentioned merely because you think it's a good idea. Even if you could scientifically prove that it's a wonderful idea, there will still be many who will object.

[Frodo]

30. Let's not be unreasonable here

It's High School History/Governement, not elementary school.

:-)

[Frodo]

29. Much closer.

But now you have the same problem on a smaller level. Just like RI doesn't want to give up it's influence in Washington, each district has an interest now as well. Remember how the Republicans kept fighting in TX (with each other) even after they had won? They were bickering over how much interest the Austin (I think) area was going to have.

That's why we talk so much about "communities of interest". Just like RI's interests are different from Georgia's... The Atlanta area has substantially different interests from the rest of the state. Ans since those communities have more than 1/3 say in the state legislature, that state still wouldn't vote to adopt the ammendment.

[CoffeePlease1947]

37. I think the trade off is much better Frodo

Think about it. An area that is large enough to have it's very own Congress member is large enough to strongly influence a Senate Election. If a city makes up 33% of the vote in the state than that is 66% of what a candidates needs to win the election. They are going to pander to that region.

You are also forgetting that even members of Proportional system will favor their home regions. Only an idiot that gets 80% of their votes from one area would ignor the conditions of that region. If a candidate fails to deliver than they lose their support. You act as though a member of Congress would not actually come from some place. Many members of Congress also want to be members of the Senate. That means they better be also helping that state out.

I think you also forget that most people have a favorite member of Congress, and that most people move at least once every 7 years.

I find it ironic that you think that all people in Atlanta, Georgia were happy with Newt. How many Democrats are you ignoring here?

Democrats would get more of the policies they want in a proportional system. The Republicans would get only some of their policies through.

Proportional Representation is the MOST democratic. Community interests rarly are only locally, and most that are local are ignored anyway.

If you like "WINNER TAKES ALL" then tell your boss that the person that does the most work for the day should get everyone's pay. Screw everyone else, they didn't win.

Mike

[demnan]

8. Really good post - a few thoughts

The districting issue has been around for a long time. Admittedly, when the Democrats could, they took advantage of it as well, sometimes to do good things like make sure minorities were represented. Districts have been formed in recent years to encourage Hispanics to run for office in areas and this helps a minority community feel empowered. I lived in a redistricted area that was especially formed to encourage a Democrat (and in this instance) the first woman to run and win office for the House of Representatives from my state. (Virginia, 8th District, Leslie Byrne)

That was the redistricting for the 1992 election in my state. Now my state has a majority of Republicans in the state legislature and that area (it's now the 11th District) has a powerful Republican (Tom Davis). So you see how things can radically change within the scope of just a decade. And Davis won his first two elections in the very District boundaries Byrne lost. The Democrats don't even run anyone for the 11th District anymore.

So good and bad can come of the districting issue. I think the more important issue is how involved Democrats continue to be in local politics. That is the key to districting and the key to power from the city, county to the state and nation.

[Mairead]

9. The problem is that at-large systems tend to reduce or eliminate

the possibility that someone who appeals specifically to a minority community can be elected. There are arguments that representatives should have broad appeal, but too often the reality is that the interests of minority communities are sacrificed.

[CoffeePlease1947]

11. Actually the opposite is true take Al Sharpton for example

Al Sharpton could not get 50% of the vote in any state. That is about 1% of the vote nationally. But getting 3% of the vote in a national election would get him in.

Jesse Jackson, Nader, LaRouche, Sharpton, and many others would have a seat under this system. Now, they and their supporters are not anything because their support is spread over all 50 states.

Mike

[Mairead]

32. Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood...I thought the issue was within-states

not national at-large.

But why would that make a difference regardless? It seems to me you'd simply have the problem of gerrymandered districts writ large. I mean, the whole point of gerrymandering is to make it impossible for a minority candidate to win as long as people vote the party line.

[Brucey]

14. The people who supported the invasion of Iraq

should have to pay for it. Those who were against it should not have to pay. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, et. al. have plenty of money. They and the others who voted for the resolution, and their supporters back home, should pay the cost. I like proportional!

[zoidberg]

15. Start by reforming the way boundaries are drawn

The new Texas map is an outrage, but it isn't that much more insane than previous maps. Let's have non-partisan committees draw the lines. It shouldn't be that hard to draw geographic boundaries that give each voter an equal vote. One editorial I read lamented that in the US, the politicians choose their voters, not the other way around.

I kind of like the idea that there is one person I can go to if I have a specific grievance with the federal government. Under a proportionate representation scheme, it would be harder to find a Representative to take the time to address to my problems.

[CoffeePlease1947]

16. Good point.

I consider other Senators better represenatives of me than my own. Yet they would not give me the time of day because I can never vote for them.

I hate it when people say: "Contact your representative and Senator" as though they care.

Even in a Presidential election I don't vote for the candidate, I vote for the electors.

Mike

[Frodo]

18. Absolutely right, but it does raise issues for us.

An absolutely "fair" system (without political considerations) hurts Democrats badly. ooking at any "red/blue" map (and I forget which color we are) it's clear that Democrats cluster together far more than Republicans do (maybe we like each other more). The cities are almost entirely ours while most of the countryside is not. The only way large numbers of Democrats get elected is by splitting those dense populations into "fingers" that stick into the city, but expand out into the suburbs, thus avoiding the "packing" (by default) that we decry in TX.

Imagine a generic downtown (circular to make it easy) that is 80/20 Democratic surrounded by subburbs that are 55/45 Republican. If the population in total supports five districts, the "fair" way to draw it (keeping communities together etc) is probably to draw a circle around the city and split the subburbs into four equal quadrants (squares cut in onw corner by the city). Good, clean, "fair". But it elects four R's and one "D".

Split that same area into five equal pie slices - each with the pointy end sticking into the city and you have five districts that are each 60% Democratic. Now we win all five seats. But the only way to do that is to have inner city votes dominate the politics of five districts that are geographically encompasing largely suburban towns. No "fair" proportioning system would do that. Suburban districts would be suburban districts, cities would be cities.

[recidivist]

20. I agree.

Gerrymandering is nothing new, but it has gotten out of hand. The Supreme Court opened the door to the current chaos in a series of voting rights decisions, starting in the 1950's and playing out over the next 25 or so years, that by now has come to demand almost perfect mathematical equality among districts.

As is often the case, the law of unintended consequences kicks in when a single principle (even a sound one) is taken to the extreme. There are commonly other, competing principles that also deserve recognition, but the single issue zealots trample everything underfoot in their haste to scratch one particular itch. Local jurisdictional boundaries -- city and county lines -- still carried considerable weight into the 1960's. A doctrine of perfect numerical equality, however, necessarily meant the wholesale sacrifice of historical "communities of interest" based on lines on the ground.

Then came the computer revolution. The 1981 California redistricting was the first to go entirely around the bend; the current Texas map actually looks sane compared to the Rorschach test maps California produced that year. The crazy stuff got even worse in 1991 when the majority-minority nonsense kicked in.

I'd like to see redistricting done by a neutral panel or, even better, by a computer program designed to respect local jurisdictions and emphasize compactness. Both Parties would take hits here and there. Let the chips fall where they may.

[rhite5]

19. Congressional Districts Matter.

I may have misunderstood you, Mike, but you can't have everybody voting for every seat in Congress. In the first place, there is no way a congressman can campaign all over the United States, so there is no way people in Oregon would know much about a congressman from Florida or Kentucky. They would have to rely on the advice of someone else or some organization or just not vote for the ones they don't know.

Anyway, congressmen are supposed to represent a certain geographical area and take care of constituent problems in that area, get to know the people in the small towns there, understand the special issues in that area. People feel a connection to their own congressman, much more than they do to their own state's senators.

You are on the right track when you talk about increasing the size of the congress. If we did so we could still permit each state to elect at least one member of congress, but the high population states would get to elect more members than they do now. That is more fair, because in many cases they have many 100s of times more population than the little states. Compare the population of California with Montana, for instance.

I have not been able to figure out how best to make political parties be fairly represented in Congress, but we do need to do something to get 3rd and 4th parties represented. The Greens are growing well beyond the 2.5% you mentioned. So are the Libertarians.

[Frodo]

21. Now THERE'S the idea!

Increase the size of the House of Representative. Each congressman(woman) must represent twice as many voters as the last time we increased the numbers.

Double the number of representatives and bring them closer to the people they represent!

Of course, they probably wouldn't all fit into the building. Hmmm.

[CoffeePlease1947]

23. Well, let me explain this way then maybe you can understand

You don't need to know every person in every state. You would most likely vote for the 20-50 people you did know. You would not need to campaign all over the country. You could say just campaign in Southern California. There would be enough people there to get you a seat.

Think of it this way, a Republican doesn't go downtown to campaign and speak at an African American Church. Likewise, a Democratic doesn't go to a Mormom chruch and try to get votes there. They go to differnet areas and hope they can get enough votes to win.

People will vote Locally. That is the idea. Your first votes would be for the people that reside or campaigned in your area. Next you would vote for people that you knew nationally.

In terms of local concerns that is what your state representatives are for. National member rarely ever vote on a bill that effects just one state, it effects everyone, if it doesn't it is because it is pork barrel or needs to be given to the states to decide, not the Federal Government.

Mike

[Devils Advocate NZ]

22. How New Zealand does it: there is a middle road.

We use a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

Lets just take the Senate, because the numbers are easier to crunch, and imagine that the Senate is elected under an MMP system. The way MMP works is to have half of the seats filled by direct election, and the other half to be filled by proportion of party vote.

So, for example, each state could have 1 direct (or electorate) seat that is run as a straight First Past The Post (FPP) election, with the candidate receiving the most votes winning. A second vote determines the other half of the Senate seats in propertion to the percentage of the vote gained by each party. The senate may need to be increased to 104 seats total in order that there can be 52 Electorate seats, and 52 Party seats.

So for example in a Senate election, someone might vote "John Smith (D)" to the electorate seat, and "Democratic Party" for the party vote. If John Smith gets the most votes in his electorate (state) he gains the Electorate seat in the Senate. The party vote meanwhile is added to the party votes for all other electorates, and the number of Party seats each party gains is based on a formula: If a party gains any Electorate seats, its percentage of the party vote determines its percentage of the seats gained - 20% of the party vote means 20% of the Party seats. So in the above example John Smith would get 1 electorate seat and the Party would get 10 party seats, for a total of eleven.

If a party fails to gain an Electorate seat, but receives more than 5% of the party vote, then it's percentage also become its share of the Party seats. Thus if the Green party failed to gain any Electorate seats, but received 6% of the Party vote, it would get 3 Party seats.

Any party failing to gain an Electorate seat or more than 5% of the Party votes does not gain any seats in the Senate, and there percentage of the Party votes are shared around amongst those parties that did get more than 5% or that gained an Electorate seat.

The Party seats are filled from the Party list. Before the election, the party has to create and register their list of Party seat candidates. The list is comprised of a set of names ordered from 1 to whatever the party wishes (up to the total number of party seats but that is an unlikely number to gain) and the Party seats are filled from this list, starting at 1. So if a party gets 10 party seats, the top ten names on the pre-published party list gain the seats, while numbers 11 up miss out. A properly formed list can increase a party's chances of getting a good Party vote, while the opposite can send voters flocking elsewhere, for example if a particularly hated politician turns up high on the list.

This of course means that all Senate seats have to be filled simultaneously in one election, but this will have little effect because as I understand it the idea behind having staggered elections is to ensure that there is some experience still kept within the senate. This would be covered by the party list. Important members can be listed high on the party list AS WELL as running for an electorate seat. If they gain their Electorate seat, the Party vote goes to the next one down on the list, but if they do not gain their Electorate seat, then their high placing virtually gaurantees they will receive a Party seat.

Now why this system is fair is based on the fact that you can split your vote. For example John Smith (D) may be your favourite personally, but you prefer the Green party to the Dems, so you could vote John Smith for the Electorate, and Greens for the Party, thus have your entire viepoint taken into account. If enough Dems believed this way, the Democratic party would be forced to form a coalition with the Greens in order to get ALL of the left-wing votes into a block.

This means that disgruntled Dems can still make their displeasure known to the party, without having to vote for an unwinnable candidate and thus throw the elections over to the Republicans.

Since we introduced MMP, we have had Center-Left governments after all but the first MMP election, and that first election was actually because a minor party mislead voters as to which of the major parties they would form a coalition with given enough votes. The people believed they would go with Labour, and instead they went with national. The outcry was enormous, and that minor party has struggled to achieve 5% ever since.

I can tell you this much: Corporations HATE MMP because it goes a long way to breaking their hold on the electoral process - they have to bribe far more parties to ensure control - and it is hated by the Old Boy networks in the parties themselves because dissatisfied voters can easily punish wayward parties WITHOUT ending up getting the opposition elected.

On Edit: Reordered some paragraphs for clarity.

[CoffeePlease1947]

24. Try explaining that to 300 million Americans LOL n/t

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. That's what the detractors said in New Zealand...

MMP still received something like 75% of the vote when placed in a head to head referendum with FPP.

There was a period of government sponsored advertising to explain the new system as well as the old system before the referendum was held, so that people had a chance to make an informed decision. However there was far more private advertising done (especially by the major parties and corporations, against MMP) but the people had become so disgusted with the current process that many people voted for change merely on the knowledge that the main parties didn't want it.

I believe the US is very much in the same stage (what with the Green party's support in 2000, the Bush fiasco, and the current concerns with BBV) and many people would welcome a chance to punish both main parties.

[CoffeePlease1947]

27. How about if we did this:

Kept the Senate the way it was but made the US House proportional. That I think would be easy and still have the same outcome.

Mike

[Devils Advocate NZ]

33. I was only using the Senate as an example...

So what you are suggesting is of course a possibility. I would think it would be better to have both houses made semi-proportional, but that is not a "set in stone" requirement.

There are probably many little changes needed to make our system work in the US, because we have only one house - Parliament - so for example the percentages needed or the exact format of the vote may need to change.

The essential point I am trying to make is that this system is a mixture of the old and new, with both a Proportional and FPP aspect to it. So for example much of the problems associated with a proportional system are covered by having a partially FPP system

For example, someone mentioned above the problems of having a representative respond to your own problems because they actually represent a diverse "electorate" under a proportional system.

Under MMP, however, you would still have at least one directly elected representative of your electorate who could be approached with problems and whose election was tied to a specific group of people. While at the same time, marginalised beliefs get a hearing they wouldn't otherwise get, because for example Green supporters would have at least one or two representatives who they could approach about their concerns.

Under the current system, unless you are Dem or Repub, you would be shit out of luck.

[kang]

31. My two cents (not for PR)

while I understand it's appeal, I don't want the Nazi/Aryan/Nation of Islam/Christian Coalition/Labor parties in America. Perhaps I am oversimplifying and I apologize to those that think I'm playing the slippery slope game, but I look at other parliaments where there are multiple parties (Israel, Italy, etc.) and I don't think that would work for us. I know there's somebody out there who can articulate this better (given my alloted amount of time for web-surfing!), so sorry if this critique is incredibly insufficient.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

34. WTF? You put Labour in the same category as Nazis?

Firstly a properly constructed proprtional system would NOT have parties with less than a seats worth of votes getting a seat.

Just as an example, a ficticious nation of 1000 people voting for a 10 seat Congress. If a party only gets 2 votes, they don't get 1/5 of a seat, because it takes 10 votes to fill a seat. What would happen is the left over votes get apportioned to the other parties who do cross the threshold, thus ensuring that all seats are filled by parties with enough support to gain at least one seat.

Parties like the one you suggest usually have so little support they would find it very hard to ever gain enough votes to gain a single seat.

[iangb]

36. In those countries....

......where 'minority' parties do win seats.....or even a position in a coalition Government.....those parties usually implode. There's nothing like a bit of responsibilty to put the blowtorch onto a party's platform.
It's happened here when an ulra RW bunch of whackos (One Nation) actually won a Senate seat (and a bunch of State seats in Queensland). The Party leader is now in gaol for election fraud, and the remaining members have morphed into reasonable independent representatives.

[Silverhair]

38. Of academic interest only.

While interesting to play with, this idea, or variants of it would require changing the constitution. Any 13 states can block a change. The 13 smallest would be hard to convince to lose power.