How would you implement proportional representation in the US?

[tyovan]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to start a philosophical discussion about proportional representation in the United States. Personally, I'm a fan of proportional representation. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, here's the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

The basic idea of proportional representation is:

The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In a closed list, voters vote for a list, not a candidate. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes, using the ranking order on its list. In an open list, voters may vote, depending on the model, for one person, or for two, or indicate their order of preference within the list.

I think that proportional representation would help ensure that minority voices are heard in Congress. I'm not advocating this as a method just for the Green Party to get into Congress. I believe the current Democrat v Republican situation is a broken system and that the country as a whole would be better off if there were alternative voices, and power brokers, in DC. Green, Reform, Constitution, Libertarian, etc - those other parties do deserve some representation in Congress.


The issue I've always had with proportional representation in the US is how to implement it within the existing Congressional framework. (US Constitution, Article I: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1)
The House of Representatives is elected by districts. States with larger populations have more representatives and more power. The Senate is comprised of two Senators from every state, regardless of that state's population. This ensures that there is legal equality amongst the states and that the wishes of the larger state's populations aren't imposed on the smaller states.

If the House were elected solely on proportional representation, the districts would lose their local representation. However, if the Senate were elected solely based on proportional representation, the smaller states would lose their ability to block the demands of the larger states.



Which brings me to my question: How would you implement proportional representation in the United States while maintaining the Constitutional balance between the states?

[MaverickCowboy]

**** that ****. Direct Democracy FTW. everyone Votes. but the constitution is Enforce, and State sovereignty. meaning state A, cant tell state B what to do. This is a Republic, a Union of states.

[JJC]

The problem is that people do not believe in new parties. If people believe in a Green Party then they should fund, organize, and campaign like the big parties do. No one is prohibiting other parties from forming and running for Congress. The Great Compromise is working well, so there is no need to change how the House and Senate is elected.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

It's an interesting question, and a good post.

To me, proportional representation in the USA sounds like a good way to...

a) Encourage party slugs who don't care about their constituents.
b) Do away with the representative system of American government.
c) Create a class of legislators who are beholden entirely to their party and not their district.
d) Silence dissenting voices inside the two major parties, as it would be impossible for mavericks like Joe Liebermann and John McCain to get support from the party to stay in office.

Basically, the US political system was not designed for proportional representation. Such a system is far more suited to the Westminster political system, rather than the US system. The two systems are very, very different and are not interchangeable. It's like trying to run mac software on a PC, and vice versa.

While it is true that the current US system tends to stifle third parties, I think its benefits outweigh its costs.

[MichaelF]

Proportional Representation is a non-starter.

Get rid of the Bicameral. Drop the House and just have the Senate*.

2 Senators per State. Senators are appointed by the Governors, with the State Legislatures confirming them.

States can then operate with their current representation systems.

Bet you you'll pay more attention to State elections....



*-that makes every State equal to all others, in keeping with the original intention of having a Union of Equals. California has no right to a greater say in this country's affairs than North Dakota.

[Soldat_Américain]

Put it this way...we are a democratic republic, not a parliamentary system. If the nutjobs want into the 'stag they better get the votes.

[Fat Lazy American]

I wouldn't.

NEXT QUESTION!

[MaverickCowboy]

I wouldn't.

NEXT QUESTION!

Then why did you bother posting?

[JJC]

Proportional Representation is a non-starter.

Get rid of the Bicameral. Drop the House and just have the Senate*.

2 Senators per State. Senators are appointed by the Governors, with the State Legislatures confirming them.
We had something like that in the past and it didn't work out well. Besides, do you trust Illinois type state government appointing a senator? p-) Bicameral system is a decent and functioning compromise. Why punish California and give North Dakota equal voice when Californians chip in more into the system with their size?

[MichaelF]

do you trust Illinois type state government appointing a senator?


I trust the citizens of Illinois to get off their asses and fix their State, if the State controls their Federal representation.



Why punish California and give North Dakota equal voice when Californians chip in more into the system with their size?

It isn't about how much influence you can buy. It is about the 50 States working together to solve National-level issues. All 50 should have an equal voice.

[tyovan]

Proportional Representation is a non-starter.

Get rid of the Bicameral. Drop the House and just have the Senate*.

2 Senators per State. Senators are appointed by the Governors, with the State Legislatures confirming them.

States can then operate with their current representation systems.

Bet you you'll pay more attention to State elections....



*-that makes every State equal to all others, in keeping with the original intention of having a Union of Equals. California has no right to a greater say in this country's affairs than North Dakota.


Hmm.. by dropping the House and having an indirectly appointed Senate, would you have Congress take a more limited role in American life (sticking more closely to the enumerated powers)?

I think bicameral is needed. Just as the Senate protects the smaller states from the tyranny of the majority, the House protects the larger states from the tyranny of the minority.

[Fat Lazy American]

Then why did you bother posting?

Because I object to the phrasing of the question, which presumes I WOULD choose to implement proportional representation in the U.S.

It's the "When did you stop beating your wife?" of political reform questions.

I like our FPTP system very much, thank you. We have enough Ron Pauls, Michelle Bachmans, Dennis Kuciniches and Maxine Waterses running around as it is.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Germany had proportional representation in the 1920's and 1930's and look where that got them.

[DaveDash]

The worst thing to happen to New Zealand was MMP. It sounded great on paper, but the reality sucked.

Smaller parties got a disproportionate say in governance due to ruling parties needing to form coalitions with smaller parties. This has led to a break down in decision making.

Even bad decisions are better than no decisions, because at least bad decisions can be learnt from. I prefer the U.S. system as it stands. At least sh1t gets done in one form or another.

[MaverickCowboy]

Because I object to the phrasing of the question, which presumes I WOULD choose to implement proportional representation in the U.S.

It's the "When did you stop beating your wife?" of political reform questions.

I like our FPTP system very much, thank you. We have enough Ron Pauls, Michelle Bachmans, Dennis Kuciniches and Maxine Waterses running around as it is.

Nothign wrong with Ron Paul.!

[digrar]

Smaller parties got a disproportionate say in governance due to ruling parties needing to form coalitions with smaller parties. This has led to a break down in decision making.


Same goes for Australia, every time some backwards Tasmanian loon or Christian do gooder gets into the Senate I cringe. Too often these people are holding the balance of power.

[DaveDash]

Same goes for Australia, every time some backwards Tasmanian loon or Christian do gooder gets into the Senate I cringe. Too often these people are holding the balance of power.

Yep, and the other net effect is that popular parties have to break campaign promises to make compromises with these smaller parties in order to actually get a government going.

Australia and NZ are relatively small countries. In a country the size of the U.S. with its current political system would eventually lead to a break down in federal government and you'd end up with the not-so-United States of America.

[Ordie]

I don't think it would work since the majority of Americans tend to vote independently regardless of party affiliation.

Moreover a list system such as they do in Israel would give minor fringe parties a greater influence in policymaking.

The big losers are the needs of individual constituencies and local districts who will be shut out. For example, highways projects in Texas may be held up by the internal influence of a Green Party back-up representative from Vermont.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Same goes for Australia, every time some backwards Tasmanian loon or Christian do gooder gets into the Senate I cringe. Too often these people are holding the balance of power.

On the plus side it does hold governments to account and prevents them going to far.

[DaveDash]

On the plus side it does hold governments to account and prevents them going to far.

Yes it does, but there is already a mechanism in place for that... voting them the fvck out of office, vote of no confidence, etc :)

I think it does more harm than good.

[digrar]

On the plus side it does hold governments to account and prevents them going to far.

Not a big enough plus in my opinion. Back in the day the Democrats might have had a decent run at that job, but Family First and the Greens don't stack up.

[Ordie]

On the plus side it does hold governments to account and prevents them going to far.

I was in your country and Hobbitland (Kiwilandia) for the past three weeks. (Great times overall-but very expensive)

What impressed me the most of New Zealand is the high degree of transparency of government matters. While I was there, major news of the day was the disclosure of MP travel expenses. The fiscal impacts seemed very minor to me and hardly newsworthy, but Kiwi's really don't like anyone taking advantage of the system.

To me, New Zealand is a land of 4 million hard working wealfare recipents who are watchdogs at the same time.

[DaveDash]

I was in your country and Hobbitland (Kiwilandia) for the past three weeks. (Great times overall-but very expensive)

What impressed me the most of New Zealand is the high degree of transparency of government matters. While I was there, major news of the day was the disclosure of MP travel expenses. The fiscal impacts seemed very minor to me and hardly newsworthy, but Kiwi's really don't like anyone taking advantage of the system.

To me, New Zealand is a land of 4 million hard working wealfare recipents who are watchdogs at the same time.

That's more likely because there isn't much news worthy going on.

Trust me, there are a lot of people that take advantage of the system, and the system is quite easy to take advantage of. Maybe not so much on a government level, but certain social economic groups can and do very easily. I'm not going to go into that here.

There is a lot of corruption however that goes unnoticed. The confidence in the police in NZ when I left almost 2 years ago was basically 0. One example, I had an ex that worked in the car finance industry, and the execs and some police of this nameless finance company would basically sell drivers licenses to rich asian students in order to get finance. I think there is something like 6 million registered drivers licenses in NZ, 4 million people, you do the math.

On a whole though there is low corruption, which is why NZ cities quite often rank higher than their Australian counterparts in those surveys they do for most livable. For example, Im quite often surprised at the organised crime presence here in Melbourne. It's easier to reduce corruption when your community is smaller however.

[HellToupee]

The worst thing to happen to New Zealand was MMP. It sounded great on paper, but the reality sucked.

Smaller parties got a disproportionate say in governance due to ruling parties needing to form coalitions with smaller parties. This has led to a break down in decision making.

Even bad decisions are better than no decisions, because at least bad decisions can be learnt from. I prefer the U.S. system as it stands. At least sh1t gets done in one form or another.


Coalitions are only needed when the ruling party does not have a suffient majority, why should they get to make all the decisions when they do not get enough votes? Atleast with proportional representation you can vote for a smaller party which can actually make a difference.

[DaveDash]

Coalitions are only needed when the ruling party does not have a suffient majority, why should they get to make all the decisions when they do not get enough votes? Atleast with proportional representation you can vote for a smaller party which can actually make a difference.

It rarely happens that the most popular party has a sufficient majority.

Like I said, it looked great on paper, but in reality it has not been so good.

[Dexx]

Germany had proportional representation in the 1920's and 1930's and look where that got them.

And what about today...

[Silent Reader]

Germany had proportional representation in the 1920's and 1930's and look where that got them.


though the major problem there was that nearly everyone got into parliament... andthere were to many parties which hardyl could form stable coalitions.

but you can do it like it is done today in Germany - use a hurdle - in this case a party has to get at least 5% of the votes in order to get into parliament (if one onle takes the proportional bit of the German system)

in one state the strongest party of the Danish minority is exempt from this rule so that they are always represented (in the state parliament). the same thing could be done in the US with a party representing the native Americans...

[HellToupee]

It rarely happens that the most popular party has a sufficient majority.

Like I said, it looked great on paper, but in reality it has not been so good.

In reality it has not been so good? NZ is one the most stable countries in the world.

If a party could govern without suffient majority the smaller parties would become irrelevant and it would devolve into a two party system. the system we have now better represents the voting base.

[PeterRJG]

The US needs to implement compulsory voting for any of this to succeed. The guys who are in power now have relied on the 30% factor - that is 60% of the 50% who actually turn up to vote.

Compulsory voting would end a lot of the fogeyism that haunts US Congress.

[Mackie]

Yep, and the other net effect is that popular parties have to break campaign promises to make compromises with these smaller parties in order to actually get a government going

There was a discussion here years ago changing the voting system:
All parties have to decide to join a block (social democratic or conservative) before the election campaign begins and the winner get min. 50% of the seats in the parliament.

[DaveDash]

In reality it has not been so good? NZ is one the most stable countries in the world.

If a party could govern without suffient majority the smaller parties would become irrelevant and it would devolve into a two party system. the system we have now better represents the voting base.

NZ is not one of the most stable countries in the world. Yes it is fairly stable, but I could name a few countries in Europe who enjoy better stability. If we are so stable, why do the Maori hold massive protests waving their own flags, passports, etc?

There wasn't a two party system before MMP was implemented and NZ was doing considerably better globally than it is now.

The government is really quite ineffective for a nation our size. Health care is falling apart, ineffective police force that is poorly resourced and more focused on ticket revenue gathering than crime prevention, poor transportation, racial tension (I know at least three people who were hospitalised after wandering home after a night out because they were white), massive brain drain to Australia/UK, universities fading in quality, secondary school quality fading (This new certificate system they have introduced is pathetic), energy issues due to this ridiculous reliance on "Green" energy, compariative low standard of living to some of our peers, etc etc. Try living in South Auckland for a while and come back and tell me how stable we are.
Proportionally we are also falling well behind Australia. Note, I said proportionally. If it wasn't for a few films over the years to boost tourism we'd be well behind.

Also, if you represent 15% of the people, you should have 15% of the say. But that is quite a foreign concept for Kiwis to fathom, as we are "big" on giving minorities quite a bit more than they deserve. The system we have now does not represent the voting base. It panders to the minority, which is why if you are a White Male living in New Zealand you have significantly less "rights" than almost anyone else. If I still lived there, I for one would rather certian parties in NZ do NOT get a greater say than what they deserve. Some of their views are quite.. extreme.

[HellToupee]

NZ is not one of the most stable countries in the world. Yes it is fairly stable, but I could name a few countries in Europe who enjoy better stability. If we are so stable, why do the Maori hold massive protests waving their own flags, passports, etc?

Do those protests turn violent? We have many protests, last one was 2-5 thousand people walking over the bridge protesting for a walkway, no violence no crack down o the instability.

Maori protests were for Waitangi day as for Passports, that was a scam targeting overstayers, you know people desperate to stay.



There wasn't a two party system before MMP was implemented and NZ was doing considerably better globally than it is now.

Doing better how and why?



The government is really quite ineffective for a nation our size. Health care is falling apart, ineffective police force that is poorly resourced and more focused on ticket revenue gathering than crime prevention, poor transportation, racial tension (I know at least three people who were hospitalised after wandering home after a night out because they were white), massive brain drain to Australia/UK, universities fading in quality, secondary school quality fading (This new certificate system they have introduced is pathetic), energy issues due to this ridiculous reliance on "Green" energy, compariative low standard of living to some of our peers, etc etc. Try living in South Auckland for a while and come back and tell me how stable we are.
Proportionally we are also falling well behind Australia. Note, I said proportionally. If it wasn't for a few films over the years to boost tourism we'd be well behind.


Ineffective police force more concerned with ticketing? Sounds like the crap disgunted drunk drivers and speeders spout off after being caught. Green energy? whats wrong with that, we have ample resources of renewable energy, as well as helps hitting our carbon targets.

Every country has its good and bad, poor and rich areas, as well as their problems, like Australia also has energy issues and water shortages.



Also, if you represent 15% of the people, you should have 15% of the say. But that is quite a foreign concept for Kiwis to fathom, as we are "big" on giving minorities quite a bit more than they deserve. The system we have now does not represent the voting base. It panders to the minority, which is why if you are a White Male living in New Zealand you have significantly less "rights" than almost anyone else. If I still lived there, I for one would rather certian parties in NZ do NOT get a greater say than what they deserve. Some of their views are quite.. extreme.

The previous system did not represent the voting base, a third party could get 15% of the vote and no seat thus no voice at all. System we have no far better represents the voting base than the old system ever did.

White males in NZ having less rights than anyone else is just utter BS, and im a white male.

[Ordie]

OFF topic:

I'd trade Oakland for South Auckland any day.

You Kiwi's don't know how good you got it.

[JJC]

The US needs to implement compulsory voting for any of this to succeed. The guys who are in power now have relied on the 30% factor - that is 60% of the 50% who actually turn up to vote.

Compulsory voting would end a lot of the fogeyism that haunts US Congress.

Too many ignorant people in this country for compulsory voting to have a good intended effect. All you will achieve is making Acorn's job easier in training these voters for whom to vote. A lot of people don't know who is their district representative in Congress or in state politics.

[Mastermind]

Our form of democracy, a representative republic, is filled with flaws. It is ****e to graft and corruptions and it has this amazing open wound that lets the public raid the treasury...this may, one day result in dire consequences for our way of government.

That is not how the framers of the constitution designed the system.....the flaws we suffer most from today are generated almost entirely by super-constitutional ideas that have been leveraged into the system by politicians and selfish interests who managed to subvert our laws. This was done by reinventing language and definitions of existing language to make the constitutional limitations they sought to remove seem confused and obscure. Regardless, our democracy still pretty much functions...it has given us a degree of freedom to achieve that practically no other government in the world offered any citizens.

We may now find ourselves on the ropes and at the mercy of outrageous people who seem to have made the decision the republic is old fashioned and obsolete....ready to be rewoven into an abomination of their choosing.

This government, as it was originally designed, in my estimation, is bar none, the best way any persons could find themselves fairly represented and capable of making their ideas heard by the government that they must live under. I believe that, in spite of the flaws and the damage our Constitutional roots have suffered over the two centuries we have been in existence. To me, there is just nothing I would rather try.

[Ordie]

Our form of democracy, a representative republic, is filled with flaws. It is ****e to graft and corruptions and it has this amazing open wound that lets the public raid the treasury...this may, one day result in dire consequences for our way of government.

That is not how the framers of the constitution designed the system.....the flaws we suffer most from today are generated almost entirely by super-constitutional ideas that have been leveraged into the system by politicians and selfish interests who managed to subvert our laws. This was done by reinventing language and definitions of existing language to make the constitutional limitations they sought to remove seem confused and obscure. Regardless, our democracy still pretty much functions...it has given us a degree of freedom to achieve that practically no other government in the world offered any citizens.

We may now find ourselves on the ropes and at the mercy of outrageous people who seem to have made the decision the republic is old fashioned and obsolete....ready to be rewoven into an abomination of their choosing.

This government, as it was originally designed, in my estimation, is bar none, the best way any persons could find themselves fairly represented and capable of making their ideas heard by the government that they must live under. I believe that, in spite of the flaws and the damage our Constitutional roots have suffered over the two centuries we have been in existence. To me, there is just nothing I would rather try.

Intresting points.

One thing that is unique about our system is that the smaller states (population wise) still have equal influence as compared to the more populated states through the Senate.

Unfortunately, sometimes at the expense of major cities where urban issues take a back seat to farm subsidies on Capitol Hill.

[Mastermind]

^^Yes, that has been a problem. But, that might be getting offset by corporate farms that now have enough cash to influence political decisions.

As demographics change, it has been my experience, where on place is squeezed, the other place bulges. The effects of demographic changes are not always equal, and not always fair and not always good for the Republic...but, it all seems to come out in the long run. Graft and corruption is caught just enough to act as a deterrnt, the people generally remain healthy, happy, just affluent enough to keep things going.

It is when one political party becomes overblown over another as we are currently experiencing we get these political "Tsunamis" that shift the winds of politics too far to one extreme or the other that seems to cause the most damage. The Republic is most healthy when both parties are about equally empowered and the supreme Court is well balanced.

I fear the current situation will become one of the most destructive in history...and that even takes in consideration the era just before the Civil War.

[BloodyTalon]

The US needs to implement compulsory voting for any of this to succeed. The guys who are in power now have relied on the 30% factor - that is 60% of the 50% who actually turn up to vote.

Compulsory voting would end a lot of the fogeyism that haunts US Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyF-p5c7OLg

[Mastermind]

Yeah...that's what we need, Jack booted thugs rounding up people and forcing them to get to the polls...especially the people they think will vote the way they want them to.

Great Idea!

[DaveDash]

Do those protests turn violent? We have many protests, last one was 2-5 thousand people walking over the bridge protesting for a walkway, no violence no crack down o the instability.

Maori protests were for Waitangi day as for Passports, that was a scam targeting overstayers, you know people desperate to stay.

They don't have to be violent for the country to exhibit instability. The fact there are mass protests over the fact they didn't get enough fore-shore means our country is not as stable as say, Sweden.

I also believe not so long ago there was an SAS raid on a suspected group wanting to overthrow the government.

There is racial tension in NZ whether or not YOU want to admit it. Ive seen it. That does NOT make us one of the most "stable countries" in the world.



Doing better how and why?
Standard of living was much higher in those days than it is now. I think the median average New Zealand income is now a pathetic $28,000.



Ineffective police force more concerned with ticketing? Sounds like the crap disgunted drunk drivers and speeders spout off after being caught.
I have had one speeding infringement my entire life. Where do you live? Do you live anywhere near a city? Auckland? There is a serious amount of violent crime that goes on that is just swept under the carpet because the police are so poorly resourced they can't deal with it. Small crime? Forget about it EVER getting attention from the police.Yet when I used to live there I would quite often see up to 4 cop cars sitting around on mission bay rd with their laser radars waiting for pop people for speeding (I dont recall ever seeing an accidental on that part of road either).



Green energy? whats wrong with that, we have ample resources of renewable energy, as well as helps hitting our carbon targets.

No we do not. We have plenty of rain but our largest city has to go on water restrictions ever year because of our ridiculous reliance on Hydro-Electric dams (which are underfunded and many of them in danger of disaster at any moment btw, my brother used to work on a lot of them).

Not to mention, those Hydro-Dams destroy ecostructures without hundreds of KMs. Our nuclear free policy is outdated and needs to be reviewed, but because of ridiculous MMP and the Greens getting a much larger say in government, we will end up at an energy crisis point before anything is done about it.



The previous system did not represent the voting base, a third party could get 15% of the vote and no seat thus no voice at all. System we have no far better represents the voting base than the old system ever did.

New Zealand was NOT a two party system before MMP. Where do you get this?



White males in NZ having less rights than anyone else is just utter BS, and im a white male.
Do you get paid to go to school? Do you get to fill quotas for certian jobs? Do you get different university pass rates(for DOCTORS even!)? Do you get default custody of children? Do you get.. do you get... do you get... etc etc

The answer is no, you don't.