Electoral reform- just an idea

[Causidicus]

My proposal for election reform (some ideas are old, but give any suggestions you may have):

Each state gets one electoral vote for each Senator and Representative it has in Congress. Senators represent their State as a whole, and the Representatives represent districts within a state. The electoral college should be allocated along similar lines. The presidential candidate who is the winner of the popular vote in a state will get the two electoral votes corresponding to that state's Senators. The other electors will be allocated based on the popular vote within each congressional district. The candidate with the most votes in a district gets that district's electoral vote. This would not only more closely represent the "will of the people", it would enhance our democratic form of government, would diminish the outside influences of the media "calling" states before the polls across the nation are closed, and would eliminate the need for the "statewide recount" that doomed us in 2000.

In addition all national-office elections (President, Vice President, Senators and Representatives) should include a automatic run-off process. Voters would vote for these offices by indicating their first, second, third and fourth choices. When the votes are tallied if there are not enough first-choice votes to give one candidate a majority, then the candidate with the least amount of votes is removed from the ballot. Any ballot that listed the removed candidate as the voter's first choice would have its vote moved to the voter's second choice. This process is repeated until a majority winner is found. This would not only encourage the growth of third-parties, by ensuring that no vote would be "wasted" (and let the Dems know exactly how much progressive support they have), but it would also ensure that all national-level officeholders would have a "majority mandate" from the people.

So, that's it, I know I don't have to ask, but let me know what you think.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Maine sorta has a similar situation in how we do our electoral votes, and

of course I am all for ranked voting, though I prefer Borda or Condorcet, IRV would be easiest on folks who count paper ballots. :)

Of course, there are other things I'd like to see done as well: http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/

[Causidicus]

I also like the idea of a national holiday and,

a 24-hour period of voting- the same 24 hours for the entire country.

[ulTRAX]

2. just another anti-democratic vote-weighing scheme

As long as our presidential election system gives some citizens a bigger vote at the expense of others, in this case privilege based on state residence, the system can impose an election loser upon the public. The ONLY way to reform our system is with a popular vote and a provision for a run-off.

[Causidicus]

3. I think the electoral college (after the above reforms) needs to stay

simply because our system of Federalism requires it. Without it, less populated areas will get the shaft to an even greater degree than they do now.

[jjmalonejr]

4. How do less populated areas get the shaft?

If elections are about the people, and your state has very few people in it, then...uh...well...

I dunno, you tell me?

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. One trouble is that if we switch to a popular vote, smaller states worry

that presidential candidates will never come to them and speak.

[ulTRAX]

10. Your fixation on state residence ...

GreenPartyVoter wrote: "One trouble is that if we switch to a popular vote, smaller states worry that presidential candidates will never come to them and speak."

I live in Mass. I don't see either Bush or Kerry coming here simply because it's not a swing state. So should non-swing states be given a heavier vote so we're not ignored? What if the candidates are not speaking to particular minorities REGARDLESS of state residence?

Your fixation on state residence above all else seems a throwback to the politics of 1787 we were brainwashed with in 4th grade US history.

The Framers are dead. This is OUR nation now. If THEIR system can not guarantee morally legitimate government... then we must reform it. But that will never happen if we place the interests of the dead over that of the living.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. It's not actually _my_ fixation with state residence.

But it is one of the issues brought up most frequently in this kind of discussion.

I would think having ranked voting and proportional representation would help the situation. And if we _did_ keep the EC, I wonder if ranked voting would help there too? Well, probably not.

The real trouble is that the framers had no idea how freaking huge this country would become. Yes, we travel faster now, but there are still only so many hours per day where candidates can speak and glad-hand and all that. Not sure what the answer is. We have the technology for satellite uplinks so that we can have "town hall meetings" nationwide all at the same time...but I suppose some folks would be distraught that it seems too "impersonal".

[Causidicus]

19. The truth is that anybody who wants to be educated

about an election can educate themselves in ways a whole lot easier than attending a rally.

[ulTRAX]

23. most citizens are still viewing US government.....

GreenPartyVoter "It's not actually _my_ fixation with state residence. But it is one of the issues brought up most frequently in this kind of discussion."

That's because most citizens have not revisited what they learned in 4th grade US history. They view the US government though the eyes of 1787 politics. It's becomes a self-perpetuating feature of US politics.

Since even the so-called Democratic Party supports an anti-democratic system... the effect is as if the very concept of morally legitimate government has vanished from all public consciousness.

It's rather Orwellian.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Yep. I don't want direct democracy, but I DO want as much

say to come from the voters as possible. I know we could do a lot to fix up our system so that everyday people are more connected with the running of this country.

[serryjw]

61. After Schwarzenegger I agree!

The American public is NOT ready for direct vote. They believe that Rush And Sean are REALLY news!I am all for proportionate representation on the county level similar to Maine. In this 2004 election a few states will decide the presidency and that is NOT democracy. Over 65% of the states have no say in what is happening. if you are a dem in TX or a rethug in CA you might as well stay home. By having PR you give 3rd parties a REAL opportunity to get their message out and ALL states count......AND WE GET CORPORATE MONEY/INFLUENCE out of the National races. They would have NO IDEA what arithmetic calculation will determine the election.

[Causidicus]

30. You seem to have a fixation

with the 4th grade (was your teacher pretty?)

J/K

Seriously, I agree that the system has drastically changed since 1787, and that most Americans don't realize how far we have gotten away from the founding principles, but trying to talk about a "morally legitimate" government is pretty pointless. Trust me, I did it for a semester in Law School (a seminar on Justification and Legitimacy of government) and it goes nowhere because there is no such thing unless you believe in moral absolutes and a higher power.

[ulTRAX]

7. ALL minorities get outvoted

Causidicus wrote: "I think the electoral college (after the above reforms) needs to stay simply because our system of Federalism requires it. Without it, less populated areas will get the shaft to an even greater degree than they do now."

ALL minorities get outvoted. Why should state residence bestow extra power and privilege when other minorities are deprived the same? If there's legitimate reasons to protect the rights of some citizens... then the PROPER ways to do so it by guaranteeing rights... NOT allowing a minority to govern as is possible under our system. Where's the protection for the majority against an election 2000?

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Which is why we need proportional representation

[ulTRAX]

12. proportional representation of what?

Proportional representation of citizens and states? As long as states are given equal suffrage with the People then the system will be anti-democratic.

[Causidicus]

15. The state (an seperate entities) have an interest in the Federal govt.

Which is why each state gets two senators. Its an idea that's fundamental to our system.

You live in Mass, which doesn't get visited (BTW, candidate "visits" are NOT part of my argument- it is insignificant in this day and age), because it isn't a swing state THIS TIME.

You gotta look at the big picture here- this isn't about the here and now, its about laying a foundation for elections in the future to be able to function better.

[ulTRAX]

21. who cares about the politics of the dead?

Causidicus "The state (an separate entities) have an interest in the Federal govt. Which is why each state gets two senators. Its an idea that's fundamental to our system."

The politics of 1787 were not handed down on a slab. The idea that there is some abstract legal entity called a state getting represented in the Senate is laughable. Senators represent the CITIZENS of a state. As such it's a transparent vote weighting scheme which the USSC found in REYNOLDS v. SIMS (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533) was illegal on all other levels of government. Read their moral argument. "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. "

I like Hamilton's take on state suffrage in Federalist 22. Talking about the Confederation he wrote: "The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense."

[Causidicus]

26. Senators do not represent the people,

or at least the shouldn't- that's what the House of REPRESENTATIVES is for. The Senate is a moderating force against the whims of the people, and is tasked with doing what is best for the country- not their own individual states (and yes, there is very often a difference).

Reynolds v. Sims was a civil rights case that was an overreaction to racial segregation. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (presumably modeled after the Federal Govt), and the the SCOTUS said the states couldn't do it the way the Federal govt. Now, the poor rural areas of those same states that caused the problem to begin with are suffering because they aren't allowed much of a voice in their legislatures.

Hamilton wrote before the industrial revolution, and couldn't have forseen a country with vast differences in the sizes and populations of the states. Luckily, others saw the wisdom in equal representation in the states.

I am talking about a system that may be possible (although not probable)- you are talking about a pie-in-the sky dream. I prefer to live a little closer to a place called reality.

[ulTRAX]

31. there you go again........

Causidicus "Senators do not represent the people, or at least the shouldn't- that's what the House of REPRESENTATIVES is for."

ROTF... thanks for ANOTHER demonstration of illusion over reality. CITIZENS of a state elect Senators. You can try to distort reality all you want... but Senators then represent those CITIZENS. As such a citizen in Wyoming has 68x the power in the Senate compared to a citizen in California. Currently 15% of the US population gets 50% of the Senate seats. Soon it will be 10%. At what point would even YOU consider this morally illegitimate?

"The Senate is a moderating force against the whims of the people, and is tasked with doing what is best for the country- not their own individual states (and yes, there is very often a difference)."

Another laughable claim. Since citizens elect both chambers... the ONLY difference between the chambers is the Senate has a 6 year election cycle, and it has different traditions. There's NO requirement that these functions can only be performed by an ANTI-democratic body. A reformed Senate based upon proportional representation of political parties could do the same AND preserve democratic principles.

"Reynolds v. Sims was a civil rights case that was an overreaction to racial segregation. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (presumably modeled after the Federal Govt), and the the SCOTUS said the states couldn't do it the way the Federal govt. Now, the poor rural areas of those same states that caused the problem to begin with are suffering because they aren't allowed much of a voice in their legislatures."

An over-reaction? I think that comment betrays your true politics. This issue I raised by bringing up Reynolds v Sims was the MORAL argument of citizen equality. Have anything to say on that topic? Didn't think so.

"Hamilton wrote before the industrial revolution, and couldn't have forseen a country with vast differences in the sizes and populations of the states. Luckily, others saw the wisdom in equal representation in the states."

Irreverent. Having a larger nation is NO requirement for anti-democratic government. And where is this "wisdom"? All you're doing is making a claim without specifying the elements that are allegedly "wise".

"I am talking about a system that may be possible (although not probable)- you are talking about a pie-in-the sky dream. I prefer to live a little closer to a place called reality."

Actually all you're doing is defending the anti-democratic status quo with traditional arguments. Yawn. Nothing you have said has in any way defended the concept of morally legitimate government.

[Causidicus]

36. I'm not trying to defend a morally legitimate government.

About the Senators: a- they weren't always elected by the people (rightfully so), and b- I'm talking about the way they should approach their jobs, and what we should be thinking when we elect them. They should want to do what is best for the country, and we should put aside our greed and other selfish desires and elect the Senator we think will do what's best for the country.

You are arguing for an ideal that is unreachable and therefore pointless.

[ulTRAX]

60. of course you are

Causidicus wrote: "I'm not trying to defend a morally legitimate government."

Of course you are.

"About the Senators: a- they weren't always elected by the people (rightfully so), and b- I'm talking about the way they should approach their jobs, and what we should be thinking when we elect them. They should want to do what is best for the country, and we should put aside our greed and other selfish desires and elect the Senator we think will do what's best for the country.

You are arguing for an ideal that is unreachable and therefore pointless."

There's two separate issues you're desperately trying to merge into one. The first is whether any vote weighing scheme such as the Senate can produce morally legitimate government. I have been clear that the answer is no. The second issue is whether such an anti-democratic body is required to have the best interests of the nation at heart. I, again, think the answer is no. If you want Senators to represent the nation and not the citizens in their states... then it only makes sense that Senators should be elected nationally. I'd prefer to see the Senate become a national parliament based upon national party elections. Only this would provide political minorities a chance at finally being represented and it does away with the tendency of wanting to feed at the public coffer to bribe the voters in one's home state. The Senate would represent the ideological interests of the nation's citizens, the House would provide regional representation.

[Causidicus]

38. One more thing

I would expect someone from Mass to understand this, but growing up in the south under the restrictive SCOTUS decisions that were, in fact, an overeation to civil rights movement, and that have caused many more problems, both socially and poitically, that were ever anticipated, my view of judical legislation- no matter who it benefits- is poor.

knee-jerk reactions are seldom good long-term policies, its true for the Patriot Act and its true for Reynolds v. Sims.

[rinsd]

42. This is true....

"Since citizens elect both chambers... the ONLY difference between the chambers is the Senate has a 6 year election cycle, and it has different traditions."

But that was not originally the intention of the founders who envisioned the Senate as a bastion of elder statesman who would be less inclined to lean to the passions of the day. The believed the House was appropriate for that which is why the terms served are so different. It sounded nice in theory and I don't see a huge difference in direct election of the Senate and the state legislatures selecting them.

[NewJerseyDem]

33. That just isn't true

Senators look out for what they need to do to get reelected. The billions of dollars in pork they bring home to their state isn't in the interest of the country, it is in the interest of their states.

[Causidicus]

11. Simple answer:

We have built-in geographical differences (they are called states). Our entire system is based on them (I like the idea of of you don't like where you are, you can either change it or move to somewhere better). We do NOT have built-in differences in race, or other classifications of "minority".

That's why state residence should get more consideration than minority status.

Also, we're not talking about guaranteeing (sp?) rights, we are talking about money and power- the federal money that comes with increased representation, and the power that comes from your vote having influence.

[ulTRAX]

17. then in your scheme there will never be civic equality

Causidicus wrote: "We have built-in geographical differences (they are called states). Our entire system is based on them (I like the idea of of you don't like where you are, you can either change it or move to somewhere better). We do NOT have built-in differences in race, or other classifications of "minority"."

Just because this was the politics of 1787 hardly means we must today go along with a scheme that deprives ALL citizens of civic equality. This is a matter of morality and morally legitimate government. What is the moral justification for state power to grant ANY citizen more power at the expense of other citizens? If the acid test for morally legitimate government is in the Declaration of Independence... that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed... then a system that allows for minority rule is morally illegitimate no matter how universally accepted the historical apologetics. It's time we all threw out whatever bullshit we learned in grade school, went back to Democracy 101, and rethought the very concept of the moral basis for government.

[Causidicus]

20. There is a big difference between "consent" and "mandate"

The current system gives "consent", it does not produce a mandate- which is what democracy is all about.

On another note, pure democracy absolutely sucks as a form of government, if you are so bent on it, you really should look into its historical failures, and then you may understand representative government.

[ulTRAX]

22. I have no idea what you're talking about

Causidicus "There is a big difference between "consent" and "mandate""
The current system gives "consent", it does not produce a mandate- which is what democracy is all about."

I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

"On another note, pure democracy absolutely sucks as a form of government, if you are so bent on it, you really should look into its historical failures, and then you may understand representative government."

Back to the old red herring that will not die... that if someone opposes ANTI-democratic government then they must want "pure" democracy? Anyone talking about getting rid of checks and balances? Representative government? Constitutional rights?

Why can't someone just want morally LEGITIMATE government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? This can EASILY be imagined. Just eliminate the anti-democratic aspects of the Constitution: a popular vote for president with a provision for a run-off should no one get 50% of the vote... and reforming the Senate so it's based on national party elections to allow citizens favoring minority parties to FINALLY get some representation in government. Last... reform the amendment process so 4.5% of the US population can not have the power to thwart any reforms.

[Causidicus]

28. I assumed you meant pure democracy because

you are so dead set against one vote counting more than another. The truth is that form of representation will discount some votes- unless all districts consist of exactly the same number of votes- a logistical impossibility.

If you don't understand the difference between affirming a choice (mandate) and allowing a choice (consent), then I really can't help you.

[ulTRAX]

51. some proposed fixes

Causidicus wrote: "I assumed you meant pure democracy because
you are so dead set against one vote counting more than another. The truth is that form of representation will discount some votes- unless all districts consist of exactly the same number of votes- a logistical impossibility."

Having some minor differences in the sizes of House districts is a trivial compared to the gross if not obscene 68x discrepancy between Wyoming and California in the Senate... something you apparently favor. There may be some fixes for House districts such as moving to multi-seat districts... and there's no real reason aside from the inability of the Framers to see anything other than states why districts can't cross state lines. I do NOT feel bound to the politics of, or compromises made at the Constitutional Convention nor so I believe in the concept of state suffrage.

But my main concerns here are not just civic equality but insuring that a minority can not govern. Our Constitution allows for both a minority of the populace to "elect" a President and control the Senate. Together they can enter the US into international treaties and pack the judiciary with Neanderthals. Add to this how Gerrymandering can allow minority control of the House. Some ways to prevent such morally illegitimate government are to weigh votes equally, push for maximum citizen participation, abolish the EC and move to a popular vote, have run offs to insure no one wins with less than 50%, outlaw Gerrymandering, and I'd even favor reforming House and Senate rules to strip Senators and Representatives of seniority privileges. Why should some citizens be less effectively represented because they kick a bum out as opposed to other citizens who keep reelecting their bum?

[Cicero]

34. Rotsa Ruck...

...getting 38 states to agree with you. It would take constitutional amendments to make changes like that, and there's no way on God's green earth that that's going to happen.

Later,

[ulTRAX]

52. dealing with the spoiled rotten small states

Cicero wrote: "...getting 38 states to agree with you. It would take constitutional amendments to make changes like that, and there's no way on God's green earth that that's going to happen."

I agree it's unlikely... but then when has it ever been raised as an issue of national debate? When are there ever ANY real criticisms made of the current constitutional arrangement?

I personally believe that the main line of attack should be to first reform the amendment process. Currently states with about 4.5% of the population can theoretically block any reform. That is scandalous. It is just another aspect of our system that makes it unresponsive and keeps us locked in the politics of 1787. I also have proposed here that to force the issue a big state, not well served by our system, might threaten secession. It's not that I want to see the US break up. What I want is a public debate about the wisdom of a system that is essentially reform-proof and getting more so. Since the amendment process is state based... demographic trends are giving a dwindling minority growing power to thwart reform. That is, by any measure, insane. There are no protections for the majority, or a super-majority to reform government. I don't propose that amendments be easy but it should not be virtually impossible to pass basic reforms in an anti-democratic system.

[rinsd]

39. How does this solve anything?

You will have equality in name only. Popular vote so everyone's vote counts. But the reality is the more populous regions will dominate the political process.

Tell me how eliminating the electroal college actually fixes anything beyond giving false weight to empty rheotoric(ie:"everyone's vote counts").

This country was built specifically to protect the interest of the minority even if at times that protection has been at the expense of the majority.

"then a system that allows for minority rule is morally illegitimate no matter how universally accepted the historical apologetics."

A system that bows to mob rule is also morally illegitimate if it offers no protection to the minority.

"It's time we all threw out whatever bullshit we learned in grade school, went back to Democracy 101, and rethought the very concept of the moral basis for government."

So what is the moral basis of government and how do you construct one from whole cloth. Of course this will be more a theoretical exercise but I am curious as to your solution to ensure minority protection while giving the majority its due.

[NewJerseyDem]

32. You mean how a lot of the security money goes to less populated areas?

The less populated areas have so much power due to the Senate that they already have plenty of power from that. Those states get more money per person than the other states by far. Less populated areas definitely don't get the shaft. The populated areas get screwed by the current system because the rural areas don't seem to care very much if people in NYC and DC or other major metro areas get killed and the rural areas have all the power.

[rinsd]

35. So why should certain regions control the whole country?

So instead of the candidates being only in battleground states we have candidates basically floating between our 4 largest cities?

That's the problem I have with the popular vote option. It sounds nice and solves nothing. Why bother voting if you live outside the cities when it will be their vote that determines the election. At least at this point the smaller populous states have the barest incentive to vote beyond it being a civic duty.

[Causidicus]

37. That's the dowside of living in an area where

the majority hold a particular position- your vote doesn't mean as much in national elections.

[Wabbajack]

6. Under your plan Bush

would have gotten more E votes in 2000. And wouldn't have needed to steal Florida to win.

And with more districts gerrymandered to lean repub than last time it would help him in 2004.

[Causidicus]

8. At different points in time, it will help different parties,

I'm not looking out for this election, or the next, and I'm ore concerned about the country as a whole than I am for the democratic party-(which is why I want more parties).

This would be a fundamental shift that would take some time to re-adjust to, but the end result would be beneficial for the country (IMHO).

[Wabbajack]

47. I think that

something along the lines of what they are trying to do in Colorado would be best. IE the number of electoral votes is based on the % of the vote the candidate gets in the state.

Example say Bush wins Missouri 51-49. Bush would get 6 E votes and Kerry 5.

[Xithras]

13. This has been proposed before, but there are problems with it.

The concept is sound, in theory, and it has the advantage that it could be implemented on a state level without the federal government or courts even having a say in the matter...the U.S. Constitution declares that the President will be selected by electoral votes, but leaves the METHOD of selecting the electors completely up to the states. While I strongly suspect that both major parties would oppose a move in this direction, the fact that the STATES decide would make these types of changes far easier to implement.

The big problem with the concept is gerrymandering. The idea of providing one vote per Representative sounds good, but MANY of those districts are horribly gerrymandered (by BOTH parties) to supress one population or enhance another. By making the Presidents office beholden to the majority opinions expressed by each of these districts, we would only be increasing the pressure to further gerrymander these districts. A great example of this is Stockton California...a city with an overwhelming Democratic majority. To neutralize that majority, the city was cut in half...with one half lumped into a heavily Republican district, and the other half lumped into a split Zell Miller style conservative Democratic district. The urban progressive vote in Stockton, a city of over 300,000 people, was completely eliminated. Until you can figure out a way to solve the gerrymandering problem, this idea isn't worth considering.

As for the people who want a straight majority election: Forget about it. A straight majority election would require an amendment to change the Constitution. That amendment would disempower the very same smaller states that would need to approve it in order to get the 2/3 vote, so it would NEVER pass. The legislatures of the smaller states would never pass an amendment that would effectively strip their residents of their voice in Presidential elections.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Proportional representation nixes the need for gerrymandering

[Xithras]

24. Nope, proportional representation is the complete WRONG direction

I assume that you're referring to a system where Party X gets 20% of the votes, and therefore 20% of the seats? That is the most disempowering method of running a government that I've ever heard of.

Remember, the entire electoral system in the United States revolves around the basic concept that we elect PEOPLE not PARTIES. That those people belong to parties and have a common view is great, but I want to choose the actual PERSON who is going to be representing my viewpoint and my positions in Congress. Proportional representation strips us of that right and forces us to vote instead for some theoretical platform that the party may, or may NOT, pursue after being elected.

Proportional representation also has a corrosive effect on the beliefs of the minority parties. The fact that Party Y got 10% of the votes and 10% of the seats may seem great on the surface, but 10% of the votes in Congress isn't going to get a single bill passed supporting their platforms or shoot down any bill they oppose. To make their voices heard, these minority parties have to forge "alliances", forcing everyone to compromise on their beliefs and creating an environment where deals are worked out in backroom meetings ("vote for my unpopular bill X and I'll vote for your unpopular bill Y").

It's a concept that sounds great on the surface, but is ultimately destructive and corrupting in implementation.

[rinsd]

41. Damn...you're on a roll.

I was about to make a point about coalition governments and you beat me to it.

[NewJerseyDem]

43. I agree

Proportional representation is very dangerous because it takes all the power away from the people and give it to the parties. For instance, primaries would be abolished under most systems of proportional representation. That would be a step way back in the movement toward greater democracy.

Also, coalition governments are very unstable and it wouldn't be practical under our system where there is no provision for dissolution of Congress so if a coalition falls apart then there would be no functioning Congress.

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. Prop rep and other reforms

In terms of prop rep. keep the primaries. Base the number of seats on either votes or registration.

There are flaws to prop rep, to be sure. But there is just as much behind-closed-doors and even in your face bargain making in our current system as there is in coalition gov'ts. (And no, I am not in favor of the sort of situtaion like Israel, where you vote for the party and wind up with a Sharon.)

However, we might not need proportional representation if:

We have across-the-board publicly-funded campaigns with equal air time and ranked voting (borda or condorcet perhaps). If we can take the big money out of the system and allow voters to state their preference for candidates, we stand a better chance of Jane or Joe Q Public of getting into office. THAT would be a government of, for, and by the people.

Editing to add that we do need to address gerrymandering one way or another. Here in Maine, the Dems pushed redistricting of Portland so that they could kill off the Green's district. (Guess they prefer to work with Repubs in the House than Greens???) He had to move in order to run again, which isn't easy because affordable housing is hard to find down there.

[Xithras]

45. There's too much division in the U.S. for coalition government.

If you look at the track records of nations with coalition governments today, you'll see their biggest failings. Coalition governments work well in nations with a common belief system, common political leanings, and common trade needs (like Israel or Finland), where the nature of political debates tends to revolve around the details of a particular proposal. Coalition governments tend to fall apart and become nonresponsive, however, when faced with a major polarizing issue. The coalitions break up, the backroom deals fall apart, and nothing happens.

The United States is, and always will be, a polarized nation. The needs of citizens living in downtown Boston or the Atlanta suburbs have nothing to do with the needs of citizens living in Jaspar Wyoming or Juneau Alaska, and the demands of those citizens on our government are as equally divided. The United States, in reality, consists of five or six geographic and economic "nations" combined into a single country...a situation that exists in very few other countries (Russia, perhaps Australia). These schisms would keep Congress from forming any kind of meaningful and lasting coalitions, and would ultimately lead to permanent gridlock in Washington.

Those geographic disparities are the driving reason why we need to keep some form of geographic representation in Congress. We are not one nation (despite what the pledge says) and it is critically important that our government represent the needs of the ENTIRE nation, and not just the major population centers.

What's my proposal? Eliminate gerrymandering by handing district boundary decisions to an independent nonpartisan group, preferably consisting of members of the Judiciary. Draw district borders based on population alone. Implement IRV to encourage third party participation. Assign electors as proposed in the original post to this thread.

Is it a perfect system? No, but it's the only one that will ensure that the nation doesn't get driven strictly by the needs of its urban citizens. It's the only system that gurantees the rights of the states with minority populations. It's the only system that gurantees that the course of the United States won't be set by the citizens of New York, California, and Texas alone. Any system that doesn't do that will eventually lead to the destruction of the nation.

[NewJerseyDem]

46. It is very important that gerrymandering ends

It is absolutely devastating for our democracy when only a handful of seats are even competitive at all every year. Iowa seems to have a very good system for creating competitive seats and their system is something to be looked at for national use, even though I don't know if that is practical for more diverse states.

[liberalpragmatist]

48. wrong - Proportional Representation CAN Work in the US

First, let me make a point about PR in general. No system guarantees representation to disadvantaged groups and minorities than proportional representation. Most legal experts and political scientists have recommended PR for Iraq (see: http://www.fairvote.org/articles/washingtonpost070604.htm).

Also, your point about coalition governments and PR being bad is a gross generality. It is true that when a *pure* form of PR is used, instability and extremism can result - witness Israel, Italy, and, of course, Weimar Germany. However, the various systems collectively known as "proportional representation" have been highly tweaked and today, most estabilished democracies in the world use it. Most nascent democracies, like South Africa, explicitly chose it because they felt it would be the only way to reflect the diversity of the country. New Zealand in '93 adopted PR with good results. Germany and the Netherlands, in particular, have had EXCELLENT results with PR over the last 50 years. Germany, in particular, uses a mixed-member system that preserves the single-member districts, and supplements them with party seats. What stays in place are two large, stable parties, the CDU and the SPD and a few minor parties - the Free Democrats, the Greens, and the East German Party of Democratic Socialism. Coalition govts in these countries are generally stable and usually last a full-term. So coalition politics *can* work, and in systems that set a high enough threshold of the vote to enter Parliament (in Germany it's 5%), stability is the general rule. That doesn't mean there's never instability - but that's true of our system too. In the Netherlands, for instance, a couple years ago, there were two elections within months. But in those countries those are the exception, not the rule.

Indeed, there is a strong movement to adopt a form of PR in Great Britain and in Canada, which, along with India, France, and the US, are the only established democracies that don't use PR.

THAT said, you are right about a few things. All the examples I have cited are parliamentary systems, where coalition governments are necessary and even desirable. Purer forms of PR would work less well in a presidential system, and we have our own history and traditions that need to be respected in any kind of change. Because we are a presidential system, it is desirable to maintain a system that is at its core, 2-party (although having some minor parties in Congress would not be a bad thing). Multiparty presidential systems have a poor track record, and having amorphous, changing coalitions running for president or dominating Congress could lead to more gridlock with our system of checks-and-balances.

Even so, there are reforms that could move us towards a system that rids us of the bad effects of single-member, winner-takes-all elections (incl. extremism, lack of minority or female representation, lack of other voices, lack of ANY third-parties) while recognizing the essential uniqueness of the American system. In a 1998 Boston Review collection of articles on PR, the responses seemed to reach a certain consensus: our current system could be improved and most settled for the first system that I am going to describe:

1. Choice Voting: Though usually grouped as a form of proportional representation, choice voting actually isn't one. What it calls for are multimember districts, usually of between 3 and 5 members, although conceivably it could go higher. A threshold is established by taking 1 over the number of seats + 1. So, in a 3-member district, the threshold is 1/4.

Voters rank their choices and vote by individual, not by party. All first choice votes are counted first. Any candidate that wins above the threshold, in this case, 1/4 is automatically elected. All surplus votes for the candidate - anything above 1/4 - are automatically recast for their second choice. If still no candidate has passed the threshold, then the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated. This process is continued until all the seats, in this case, 3, have been filled.

Such a system could work well in the US if we were to adopt 3 to 5 member seats wherever applicable. Similar forms of voting were used on many town councils in the early 20th century and Illinois used a similar system until the 1970s. There is a strong movement to return to it in that state.

The main downside to this are the complexity of the vote count and counting the ballots. It should be noted that there's nothing very complex for the voter - they simply have to rank their choices like in Instant Runoff Voting, and that's it. However, vote-counting mechanisms would have to be well-developed. Australia offers an example - the 20-million strong country uses it for senate elections.

For more info on choice voting, see: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm#stv

An alternate form of this would use a semi-proportional voting system called cumulative voting. This was actually the system Illinois used. Every person has as many votes as there are seats. Voters can distribute their votes however they want. For instance, in a 3-member district, they could cast all 3 votes for one candidate, 2 for 1, or one for all three. Such a system tended to reinforce a two-party system but also promoted diversity of views, and allowed both ethnic and political minorities (i.e. downstate Democrats and Chicago Republicans) to get representatives.

See: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/semiproportional.htm#cumulative

2. Alternate Vote Plus - The other proposal is one that was devised by an extensive official commission in Great Britain in a 1997 study on scrapping the first-past-the-post system of elections.

Called Alternate Vote Plus, the system calls for IRV in single-member districts, and for having roughly 20% of parliament elected by party, as at-large representatives elected in super-districts - groupings of countywide or citywide parliamentary districts. See: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems4.htm#AV+

In the US, such a system could work like this: expand the house to about 585 (a 1/3 increase). Distribute the votes by state as is done currently. Ban gerrymandering, and have 3/4 of each states seats elected in single-member districts by IRV. However, also have citizens cast a vote for a party. Once all the districts within a state are tabulated, the party vote is tabulated, and the at-large seats (the extra 1/4) would be distributed to make the overall share more closely approximate the party vote. Theres a complex mathematical formula to doing this and it wouldn't be exact, but it would allow for some proportionality, while still making majorities dependent on winning lots of individual seats. A threshold could be set natioally state to keep out narrow, extremist or explicitly regional parties. And, if allowed by the Supreme Court, small states, for example the Great Plains and Mountain states, could form multistate at-large districts for at-large seats, while preserving their own individual seats for each state.

I believe either system would be superior to our current one. Even cumulative vote, or limited vote (yet another semiproportional system, related to cumulative voting) would be superior. None would be too foreign for America. All would put a premium on electing inviduals, not parties, and all would reflect the diversity of views better, without wrecking the two-party system or creating greater instability in the long term. Of course, any change would probably produce some short-term instability as the political system adjusted.

[ulTRAX]

54. I can not believe what I'm reading

Xithras wrote: "Remember, the entire electoral system in the United States revolves around the basic concept that we elect PEOPLE not PARTIES. That those people belong to parties and have a common view is great, but I want to choose the actual PERSON who is going to be representing my viewpoint and my positions in Congress. Proportional representation strips us of that right and forces us to vote instead for some theoretical platform that the party may, or may NOT, pursue after being elected."

And the alternative is having all elections based in set geographical districts or states which almost guarantees the minority parties, who may make up a sizable minority nationally can NEVER win in any district or state. THIS is the crux of many of our problems. Voters favoring minority parties can not vote their conscience because they are doomed to never have representation for their views. So they vote the lesser of the evils. The marketplace of ideas that SHOULD be active in representative government is reduced to the parties moving to the middle... parties waltz around each other stealing the other's issues.

"Proportional representation also has a corrosive effect on the beliefs of the minority parties. The fact that Party Y got 10% of the votes and 10% of the seats may seem great on the surface, but 10% of the votes in Congress isn't going to get a single bill passed supporting their platforms or shoot down any bill they oppose. To make their voices heard, these minority parties have to forge "alliances", forcing everyone to compromise on their beliefs and creating an environment where deals are worked out in backroom meetings ("vote for my unpopular bill X and I'll vote for your unpopular bill Y")."

And just what DO you favor? We already know our two party system NARROWS the range of political debate. No one raises the BIG issues such as corporate personhood, or constitutional reform. As for political minorities.. do you actually believe either Progressives or Rightists are not co-opted by this system? They MUST compromise their beliefs with their parent party because they know the system doesn't allow them to go follow their conscience and go it alone without acting as "spoilers".

[ulTRAX]

27. proportional representation of what?

GreenPartyVoter wrote: "Proportional representation nixes the need for gerrymandering"

Proportional representation of what? The "great compromise" at the Constitutional Convention that led to the House and Senate pretend to provide proportional repesentaiton... but in this case states have equal standing with the People... and as we all know, citizens of states elect their Senators. So in reality the ONLY thing the Senate does is magnify the voice and power of SOME citizens based on state residence at the expense of other citizens.

[Causidicus]

29. I think "proportional" may mean

some sort of parlamentary system which, as was stated above, is even worse.

[liberalpragmatist]

49. GreenPartyVoter means proportional representation

A catch-all term for a variety of voting systems. In its purest form, PR means that if a party wins 10% of the vote, it wins 10% of the seats. However, there are many systems, and many forms that are based on individual candidates, not parties.

See this, for more info: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/whatispr.htm

[Causidicus]

18. What about the implications that re-districting would have

on the presidential election? Now districts are drawn to help elect congress persons, under this system there would be the additional consideration of Presidential electors- which may in fact be a mitigating factor instead of an aggravating one (the idea that moderates like a split legislature and executive).

Also, my proposal assumed an Amendment-making this system mandatory for all states. Unless California, Florida and Texas were invloved, it would be pointless.

[rinsd]

40. Excellent points...

Gerrymandering has hindered responsible governance(ie: consent of the governed) more that the electoral college could ever hope to.

[liberalpragmatist]

50. Not a good idea

Such a system offers few advantages over the current system. If Gerrymandering were banned, it might make more sense, but even then, many of the problems inherent in the current system remain. It's still possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but not the EC vote. It's been shown that if done by district in 1960, Nixon would have won. And Bush would've won without any help from his brother in 2000.

Now, I agree that it's a better system than the current system if gerrymandering is banned. Even so, I favor a direct-popular vote election. Why? The president is a national figure. Hence, it makes sense to elect him or her by national vote. And for the argument that small states will be ignored, they're already ignored. Most states are ignored. What small states are competitive? Outside Delaware, none, although Montana has been in the past.

Instead, all focus is on a small number of swing states. They are where the candidates campaign, and where most of the media is concentrated. Even large states are effectively ignored. Who bothers campaigning in New York or California or Texas?

Additionally, you can't just carry large urban areas and win. Dukakis won the urban areas, and he still lost. To win, you have to carry a vast swath of voters. Most voters are not just in California and New York, they're spread throughout.

As Akhil Reed Amar, constitutional law professor at Yale Law School said before Congress, if the system is so good as it is, why don't we use an electoral college to elect governors of large states? And, would strategies change THAT much? Since the winner of the EC usually wins the Popular vote, strategies shouldn't change DRASTICALLY. People would still put the greatest effort into where the largest number of undecideds and largest numbers of closely-polarized voters are, as they do now. However, they could spend more time campaigning in areas that get the shaft currently. See:http://www.house.gov/judiciary/222315.htm

Alternately, if you want to preserve the need for small states to have overrepresentation to compensate them, then at least talk about making electoral votes automatic and getting rid of actual electors. Break down the vote in each state proportionately to the nearest 100th. It would preserve overrepresentation of the small states, while giving individual voters more power, esp. in states where one party dominates heavily.

[HopeArrival]

53. What is wrong with the electoral system as it stands?

It has worked quite well for 200+ years. Our founding fathers seem to have gotten it right.

[ulTRAX]

55. thanks for an example of our secular religion

HopeArrival wrote: "What is wrong with the electoral system as it stands? It has worked quite well for 200+ years. Our founding fathers seem to have gotten it right."

Just how do you define "works well"? Does our system create morally legitimate government that truly attempts to gain the consent of the governed?

The US has developed a secular religion. This ideological brainwashing starts in our early education. We are told that the Framers got it right and we should defer the interests of the living to the will of the dead. Some like Reagan actually believe that the Framers were guided by God. What a hoot. Most citizens are intellectually incapable of critiquing our system from the perspective of democratic principles because they dismiss those principles in favor of whatever the Framers wanted. If we get an unelected Star Chamber called the EC imposing a George Bush upon the nation.... who is then free to abuse his powers to push for a majority in the Senate... even the progressive Democrats here can't muster intellectual courage to really critique the system and see it for what it is.

[slutticus]

57. Self Delete

[VelmaD]

58. Please don't feed the trolls

:)

P.S. PM :)

[slutticus]

59. Yes....I know ......I always say that...

....but this time I fed them.

I'm deleting all my responses to him (he's no longer around to "defend" himself) I feel ashamed

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Pretty good for a start. Abolishment better.

The President serves all the people (allegedly) and should be elected by all the people. Every vote should count.