Reply With Quote**** 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.
How would you implement proportional representation in the US?
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/Proport...representation
The basic idea of proportional representation is:
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 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.
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/constitut....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?
**** 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.
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 is online now](images/statusicon/user-online.png)
![[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar](image.php?s=e924cd5057698ff14b78834231eca036&u=30547&dateline=1171465900 "[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar")
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't.
NEXT QUESTION!
Then why did you bother posting?Originally Posted by Fat Lazy American
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?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?
I trust the citizens of Illinois to get off their asses and fix their State, if the State controls their Federal representation.
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.
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.
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.
Germany had proportional representation in the 1920's and 1930's and look where that got them.
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.
Nothign wrong with Ron Paul.!
Posting Permissions
