• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to BREAK the two-party system: Closed-List Proportional Representation

R

Roycarn

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
308
Reaction score
162
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In most of the country, you show up to vote for a single candidate in a single race for Congress. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Under proportional representation, parties come up with lists of candidates they want elected from districts with more than just one seat up for grabs. You vote for the party you want to win the seats, not just a candidate belonging to the party.

Parties are awarded seats in a district proportionally. If a district has 10 seats and a party wins 10% of the vote, they get 1 seat from that district. The top 1 name from the party list gets that seat.

This makes it FAR easier for smaller parties to win seats in a legislature. If you have a 100-seat race, getting 5% of the vote gets you 5 seats, enough to potentially hold the balance of power in a legislature.

In short, proportional representation simple, elegant, and effective. The vast majority of countries with proportional representation have a healthy multiparty democracy where parties need to work together to govern.

I look forward to answering your questions in the posts below.
 
What are the known disadvantages of this system and how would you address them?
 
phoenix2020 said:
What are the known disadvantages of this system and how would you address them?
Click to expand...
The main disadvantages are that it could reduce the direct constituent link that voters have with their representatives and that fringe or marginal parties could get elected in this way.

The solution would be to use multi-member districts based on the regions of the country. But even if you don't have that, you can still lobby your politician based on where that MP's address is and recreate a constituency system that way.

As for extremists getting elected, yes, this happens pretty regularly. In most cases, they remain marginal forces, and in some, they can even participate in government. But this is a downside we have to live with if we want a democracy where as many voters are as represented as possible.
 

WTF? US Senators are (now) elected statewide and US House representatives by (often gerrymandered) congressional district residents.
 
Good post but it leaves out the downsides of PR. Chief among them is voters cannot determine governments which are always decided by closed room deals between a number of parties. often such deals give disproportionate power to small parties.
 
Which countries?
 
It has long been said that the winner-takes-all nature of the election hard-wires the two-party system.

The founders did not anticipate this outcome. Correspondence shows that they expected the House of Representatives to elect the President frequently. That would entail no candidate obtaining 50% +1 votes in the Electoral College.
 
Sweden said:
Good post but it leaves out the downsides of PR. Chief among them is voters cannot determine governments which are always decided by closed room deals between a number of parties. often such deals give disproportionate power to small parties.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that it favors small parties excessively, the larger the party's vote share the harder it is to sidestep., thus more influence. Smaller parties can be worked around. In a parliamentary system with FPTP, you don't really vote for a government either, you vote for the individuals who may or may not comprise that government, same as PR.
NatMorton said:
Which countries?
Click to expand...
Germany
Denmark
Brazil
New Zealand
Indonesia
Columbia
Finland
Spain
Argentina
...
There are literally 80 different countries that use PR.
 
Half the countries you listed have governments that are not worth imitating. Why are you sure PR is better?
 
NatMorton said:
Half the countries you listed have governments that are not worth imitating. Why are you sure PR is better?
Click to expand...
As the post describes, it would basically get rid of the two-party duopoly that currently exists in American politics. You're right ofc that many countries I listed are not worth imitating, then again, neither are most single-winner countries.
 
Roycarn said:
As the post describes, it would basically get rid of the two-party duopoly that currently exists in American politics. You're right ofc that many countries I listed are not worth imitating, then again, neither are most single-winner countries.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would change our current two party system, but you’re talking past the issue. The question is whether getting rid of the two party system would be a good thing. I see little evidence that is the case. Our system of democracy has proven to be as — and I would argue more — durable than any in human history. We should take care changing for change’s sake.
 
phoenix2020 said:
What are the known disadvantages of this system and how would you address them?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it's winner takes all delegates states. That is basically saying that at least thirty percent of the vote went to the candidate you did not vote for, at least thirty percent and more likely closer to forty or more received your vote even though you didn't vote for that person.
 
The current system has flaws, but are you talking about increasing the number of elected people? It's not clear what people would be getting.

There's a better solution IMO: ranked choice voting. Of course more important than any of that would be getting money out the elections and governing (such as lobbyists).
 
I'm willing to entertain some other ideas to make the "****. I only have one choice left." shit stop. It was bad enough when we only had two lousy choices.
 

In Germany, if a party doesn't get a certain percentage of the vote, they don't get to participate in the Bundestag at all. Measures such as those would keep fringe parties out.
 
I think the problems with American politics go much deeper than just the two party system. Holding politicians accountable to the people and not Big Money is a good place to start. Reducing the power of the federal government and returning a lot of power to the states and even counties is a good second move. Then having many parties make great sense. Switzerland has 9 million people divided into 26 quasi-autonomous cantons and over 20 political parties.
 
To be precise, new zealand has mix member proportional voting system and also has a system where the voter gets two votes. One for the party and one for the electorate. This allows the voter to pick the person in their electorate they think best advances their interests, and the political party that best represents their interests and they do not have to be the same.




The difficulty for america would be that america votes for its leaders where as countries that use proportional systems vote for the party. America does not have party system. They have a loose umbrella party system where politicians with differing views gather under the umbrella of one side, democrats or the other, republicans but owe no loyalty to that party and can vote against the party if they want to. You vote for a person, not a party.

To have a proportional system you would need to change over to the westminster party system of government.
That does not have to be a king, an elected president can also be a ceremonial head of state.
 
I obviously disagree. A two-party system is an artificial one, generated mostly by a country's electoral system. If people were given a fair choice, many of them would opt for smaller parties. Why should they be forced to choose among just two of them in order for them to have their vote count? Yes, our democracy has survived a long time but for a large amount of that time it was based on disenfranchisement of men without property, minorities, women etc. In those cases, we made lasting, positive improvements to our electoral politics. And if you look at the fragile states index, 15 out of the top 20 states are PR countries, whereas the US doesn't even break the top 30.

In most parliamentary systems, you typically vote for your favorite candidate's party that they're putting up for the prime minister's post. In a presidential system like ours, you typically vote for a president and vote "down ballot" for that candidate's party (or their opposition in mid-terms ). I don't see how that's fundamentally different.
 
Roycarn said:
Why should they be forced to choose among just two of them in order for them to have their vote count?
Click to expand...
For starters, you're not forced. There will be third party candidates on the ballot this November.

Who convinced you otherwise?
 
That is one of the reasons to have a voting system that gives the voter two votes. One for the person representing their electorate and the other for their preferred party. and often as not the two are not the same.

And yes people vote for all sorts of reasons personality as well as policy. Saying that it is typical for people to vote for personality could be more a reflection of your own voting style rather than something typical of everyone.
 
The way you break the two-party system is to start electing 3rd party candidates down-ballot, so that the party(ies) are seen as viable from a national perspective.

Are you listening, Libertarians????
 
I have more than one citizenship, and sometimes live/vote in a country that has a form of proportional representation. Over the years I have watched both the good and bad impacts of it. On average, I think it is neither better nor worse than 'first past the post'. Yes it does allow for better minority representation, but in doing so it often allows a very small minority to hold the vast majority to ransom. You can see stupid legislation that maybe 90% of people don't agree with because the process has empowered some small minority that is controlled by some commercial interest group etc. Personally, I think I prefer FPTP with all it's flaws. I just hate seeing the country held to ransom by crazy minority interest groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…