[Vision2020] polarizing and the two-party system

Sun Oct 15 13:10:50 PDT 2006

To first clarify what we are talking about, consider the quote below from
the link immediately after:

...of necessity, this arrangement dictates that all PR systems rely on
multi-member districts.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#B.%20Proportionaltxt
---------

There are numerous methods of implementing proportional representation, as
this concept applies to different types of elections in differing electoral
systems.

One method possible here in the US is to allow US Representatives from
states (states could individually vote to adopt PR or not) to be elected via
simple proportional representation based on one person one vote. Given that
many states only have one representative, there can't be
proportional representation voting in those elections for house seats.

In states with numerous representatives, minority parties could gain house
seats rather easily with PR.  In states with very large numbers of
representatives, the state could be split into several large
voting districts to allow some degree of regional representation,
while still allowing proportional representation voting.

California with 53 house seats would generate an unmanageable ballot with
statewide PR for those house seats.  And maintaining regional
state districts would partly answer the objection that PR does not address
more local regional issues.

Consider that if this information below is true, states once had the option
of using PR for US House seats.  Does this mean currently PR voting for US
House seats is illegal nation wide?

http://bostonreview.net/BR23.1/richie.html

Rep. Cynthia McKinney has introduced the Voters' Choice Act (HR 3068) to
restore the option states had before 1967 to elect their Congressional
delegations by PR. The bill is acquiring a growing number of co-sponsors,
and other pro-PR legislation likely will be introduced in Congress in 1998.
Several state groups have formed to promote PR, and recent PR initiatives in
two major cities--Cincinnati and San Francisco--won 45 and 44 percent of the
vote, respectively, despite limited funding and media exposure.
--------

Another option that can apply to some political races is to give voters a
number of votes they can assign to various candidates:

http://www.fairvote.org/reports/1993/hertzberg.html

Ms. Guinier proposes as an alternative a variation on proportional
representation which she calls "proportionate interest representation." It's
really a modified at-large system. In a citywide election for five council
seats, say, each voter would have five votes, which she could distribute
among the five candidates any way she likes. If a fifth of the voters opted
to "cumulate," or plump, all their votes for one candidate, they would be
able to elect one of the five.
--------

Anyway, the options for how PR can be used to encourage more fair
representation and voter participation are very complex, and no system is
perfect.  Perhaps analyzing how other nations that now employ PR function is
a good starting point, while comparing PR with other types of electoral
systems.  Of course mixed electoral systems can be employed, like the system
in Germany described at the link below, the same link that I gave at the
top.

I suspect it would be very difficult if not impossible to implement
proportional representation for US House seat elections in states where it
could usefully apply.  Politicians and their backers have spent considerable
effort to redistrict their winner take all house seat elections to their
party's favor, and taking away this powerful tool of political control would
be met with fierce opposition.  Allowing more minority party representation
in the US House could have limiting effects on Republican or Democratic
party domination in close votes.

The research information and discussion at this link offers far more
substance regarding PR and various electoral systems than I can assimilate
with good comprehension on a lazy rainy Sunday:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#A.%20New%20Zealandtxt

Voters are said to be more willing to cast votes for smaller parties when
they know that their votes will produce tangible results, and when seats are
allocated on the basis of the share of the popular vote. The ability, in
general, for PR systems to deliver seats to smaller parties encourages the
formation of such parties, a factor which promises representation of a wider
spectrum of public opinion.
------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 10/15/06, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> One option in a three-way race would be to adopt a method used by (you're
> not go to believe this) Louisiana.  There would be a run-off race between
> the top two candidates.
>
> As in your example:
>
> Green Party Candidate - 25%
> Democrat Candidate - 35%
> Republican Candidate - 40%
>
> The subsequent run-off election would be between the Democrat candidate
> and
> the Republican candidate.  Since the election concerns a one-person
> office,
> I fail to see how this could be accomplished any other way.  Any candidate
> worth his/her salt would support/enact policies which would appease the
> most
> people.
>
> It is a simple matter of "Rule by Majority".  I realize that, with your
> example, a true majority vote may not be realized.  However, considering
> all
> aspects, it is the fairest approach.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Vandalville, Idaho
>
> "Politicians are like diapers.  They should be changed frequently and for
> the same reason."
>
> - Robin Williams
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Andreas Schou [mailto:ophite at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:07 AM
> To: Tom Hansen
> Cc: Vision2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] polarizing and the two-party system
>
> > Ultimately, your concept would eliminate true representation.  These
> > representatives would speak for their parties and not the people that
> > elected (or as suggested by you "did not elect") them.
>
> I'm not against the two-party system. I'm just suggesting that our
> system is structured so that it will not provide greater diversity in
> politics, and will occasionally produce truly perverse outcomes.
> Proportional representation solves this problem, but adds the problem
> of not ensuring regional representation.
>
> Take, for instance, a district where 25% of the voters vote for the
> Green Party candidate, 35% for the Democrat, and 40% for the
> Republican. Who wins the election? The Republican. Which policies
> would the majority of the voters in this district like to see enacted?
> My guess is, policies closer to those of the Democrat or the Green
> Party candidate. Which policies are actually enacted? Those of the
> Republican.
>
> There are major electoral advantages, under the winner-take-all
> system, of consolidating the vote into as few voting blocs as
> possible. Expecting that the parties won't take advantage of this is
> ridiculous.
>
> -- ACS
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061015/8a5b25bf/attachment.htm 