Hypothetical: Proportional representation for parties

[Deuce]

Many countries use a proportional representation system, where each party gets a number of representatives based on the number of votes cast for that party. Pretend we replaced the 100-man Senate with such a system:

2012 Election results:
Democratic Party: 44% of the vote
Republican Party: 38% of the vote
Tea Party: 8% of the vote
Green Party: 6% of the vote
Moderation Party: 3% of the vote
Internet Nerd Party: 1% of the vote.

Each party would have senators equal to the % of votes received. (since it's 100 seats)

Would such a system work here? Do you think it would be better or worse? Let's assume for now that the Presidential election remains in its current form. Would maybe having the House in this system be better instead of the Senate? Both?

Pros:
-Opens the field to smaller parties
-Smaller parties are no longer "spoilers" in Senate races.
-With more parties comes a party that is more answerable to its voters - no more RINOs and Blue Dogs!
-EDIT: Also, reduced incumbency, since the Senators would no longer have a district to entrench themselves in

Cons:
-Reduces geographic representation to House-only, "your" Senator might not be from your state anymore
-"Hung parliament," a situation where no party has a majority and, rarely, this can make getting a majority vote for even basic legislation difficult if the parties are squabbling too much.
-Crazy people can get a stronger voice. While probably not 1%, if you had the house of representatives work this way, the KKK might squeeze out enough votes for one representative.


Let's also assume for the sake of argument that the Senate was exposed to some sort of hallucinogenic and floated a constitutional amendment to allow such a change, and the House and state legislatures thought it was hilarious that the Senate was meeting while on drugs and went along with it.

 

[Zinc Route]

***** It would maybe work in the House - not the Senate and that means no District lines. All it would do would be to 100% guarantee incumbants stay in. Therefore in the USA it won't work.

***** Israel has had that in the Knesset with power sharing deals usually the norm. The late Meir Kahane always had a seat in the Knesset.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What you're describing is more like a coalition type government structure, something that is quite common in other parts of the world. It tends to breed compromise... which can be both a positive or a negative.

 

[Catawba]

What you're describing is more like a coalition type government structure, something that is quite common in other parts of the world. It tends to breed compromise... which can be both a positive or a negative.

Much like we have now.

 

[Deuce]

Much like we have now.

Right now we have nothing remotely resembling compromise...

I figured replacing the Senate was a better idea because the House would still have geographic representation.

You certainly would not guarantee incumbents. If next election cycle Democrats only got 51% of the votes in the Senate race, they'd only get 51 Senators. 8 people gotta go! I'm not sure how you'd handle selecting those 51 Senators though...

 

[Zinc Route]

Right now we have nothing remotely resembling compromise...

I figured replacing the Senate was a better idea because the House would still have geographic representation.

You certainly would not guarantee incumbents. If next election cycle Democrats only got 51% of the votes in the Senate race, they'd only get 51 Senators. 8 people gotta go! I'm not sure how you'd handle selecting those 51 Senators though...

***** Well if it's based on seniority - Bob Byrd (D-WvA) stays in though barely breathing while Gillibrand (D-NY) fill in will go.

 

[Deuce]

***** Well if it's based on seniority - Bob Byrd (D-WvA) stays in though barely breathing while Gillibrand (D-NY) fill in will go.

Yeah, I think seniority would lead to even greater incumbency. Perhaps a sort of primary system where each party's registered voters select the candidates from a pool.

 

[Renae]

I think the biggst problem rose when they made Senators voted for by the public.

Term limits fr the House and returning the Senators to the State Legislators would be a far BETTER fix then what you have proposed here.

 

[misterman]

I think the biggst problem rose when they made Senators voted for by the public.

Term limits fr the House and returning the Senators to the State Legislators would be a far BETTER fix then what you have proposed here.

Wow, you don't like democracy.

 

[misterman]

Many countries use a proportional representation system, where each party gets a number of representatives based on the number of votes cast for that party. Pretend we replaced the 100-man Senate with such a system:

I think PR makes alot of sense, but it would make more sense in the House, especially with more members.

 

[Deuce]

I think PR makes alot of sense, but it would make more sense in the House, especially with more members.

I thought about that, but wanted to preserve the geographic representation the house brings. The house gives you a representative who is very local.

We could always boost the Senate up to however many seats.

 

[Renae]

Wow, you don't like democracy.

Since we DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY... for a very good reason... you're right, I'm not a huge fan of Democracy. I'm a HUGE fan of the democratic process. But "Democracy" no, no I am not.

Have you ever read the Consitution? How about the Federalist Papers?

Can you define our system of Government? I'll give you two words to go study... "Representative Republic".

Get back to me when you've done your homework.

 

[misterman]

Since we DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY... for a very good reason... you're right, I'm not a huge fan of Democracy. I'm a HUGE fan of the democratic process. But "Democracy" no, no I am not.

Have you ever read the Consitution? How about the Federalist Papers?

Can you define our system of Government? I'll give you two words to go study... "Representative Republic".

Get back to me when you've done your homework.

Thanks for the lecture, but I think I'm amply educated on the subject. But I didn't say "a Democracy" I said "democracy" as in the basic principle.

Last time I checked, there weren't any term limits for Congress in the Constitution. Just while we're doing circular arguments.

 

[samsmart]

Can you define our system of Government? I'll give you two words to go study... "Representative Republic".

Actually, technically, we live in an indirect democracy that is a representative republic.

 

[reefedjib]

I see no problems with the system as currently designed. The issue is properly observed to be the continued reelection of certain Senators and Representatives that do not any longer reflect the objectives we feel the parties ought to take. This is an issue of propaganda and activism. Get people motivated to be involved and change the political landscape, like the Tea Partiers are doing. Like the Whigs are trying to do.

 

[samsmart]

I think the biggst problem rose when they made Senators voted for by the public.

Term limits fr the House and returning the Senators to the State Legislators would be a far BETTER fix then what you have proposed here.

Term limits for the House would be be bad as it would prohibit our experienced politicians from running for office.

Returning the Senators to the State Legislators would be EVEN WORSE that what we have now since Senators would be voted for by the State Legislatures which would resort to procedures to cause gridlocks to prevent Senators from being seated and cause states to be unrepresented in the Senate. That's why the people were able to get the constitutional amendment passed allowing for direct election of Senators in the first place.

 

[samsmart]

I see no problems with the system as currently designed. The issue is properly observed to be the continued reelection of certain Senators and Representatives that do not any longer reflect the objectives we feel the parties ought to take. This is an issue of propaganda and activism. Get people motivated to be involved and change the political landscape, like the Tea Partiers are doing. Like the Whigs are trying to do.

The thing is that the Tea Partiers and the Whigs are a vocal minority. That will make it difficult for them to get represented in government.

But that's only because of our electoral system. Personally, I prefer to change the electoral system. I think that Representatives should be voted in through First Past the Post, which we have now, but Senators should be voted in through Instant Run-off Voting, so that only the most moderate politicians can represent the whole state. Such a solution would provide the least legal wrangling to our system and make third parties much more viable. Although I wouldn't mind it if IRV was used both for Representatives and Senators.

 

[reefedjib]

The thing is that the Tea Partiers and the Whigs are a vocal minority. That will make it difficult for them to get represented in government.

But that's only because of our electoral system. Personally, I prefer to change the electoral system. I think that Representatives should be voted in through First Past the Post, which we have now, but Senators should be voted in through Instant Run-off Voting, so that only the most moderate politicians can represent the whole state. Such a solution would provide the least legal wrangling to our system and make third parties much more viable. Although I wouldn't mind it if IRV was used both for Representatives and Senators.

Well the Whigs are an extreme minority right now. We are just starting to grow the party and we haven't tapped into the kind of support and activism represented by the Tea Party protesters. We are typically fiscally conservative.

The Tea Party protesters are primarily fiscal conservatives, but more traditional conservatives are trying to hijack that to include social conservatism. They are a significant activist block of voters who are influencing Republicans. Last I heard there was a Tea Party effort to fill the precinct positions to give them voting rights within the party. That provides them with more than just a vocal minority position.

I support Instant Run-off Voting. I have no idea how our voting systems will handle that. That is an issue.

 

[misterman]

I see no problems with the system as currently designed. The issue is properly observed to be the continued reelection of certain Senators and Representatives that do not any longer reflect the objectives we feel the parties ought to take. This is an issue of propaganda and activism. Get people motivated to be involved and change the political landscape, like the Tea Partiers are doing. Like the Whigs are trying to do.

Hey, wow, the people taking responsibility and changing the leadership instead of whining about the system!

Well done.

 

[samsmart]

Well the Whigs are an extreme minority right now. We are just starting to grow the party and we haven't tapped into the kind of support and activism represented by the Tea Party protesters. We are typically fiscally conservative.

Indeed. I'm somewhat interested in the Whigs, although they seem to be more on the conservative end for me to choose personally. However, I do support them gaining strength.

The Tea Party protesters are primarily fiscal conservatives, but more traditional conservatives are trying to hijack that to include social conservatism. They are a significant activist block of voters who are influencing Republicans. Last I heard there was a Tea Party effort to fill the precinct positions to give them voting rights within the party. That provides them with more than just a vocal minority position.

I know the Tea Party is larger than the Whigs right now. Right now I don't really see the Tea Party movement as a separate political party but rather an organization for conservative voters, as opposed to the Republican Party, which is an organization of conservative politicians. As politicians, the GOP must be concerned with business interests such as corporations and executives. But those interests may be at odds with regards to the poorer or less influential conservative voter. I believe it is them who are making up the bulk of the Tea Party.

So really, I'm starting to see the Republican Party as the party for wealthy fiscal and social conservatives while the Tea Party is the party for the middle class and poorer fiscal and social conservatives. The GOP is trying to hijack the Tea Party in order to keep a majority voting block, but I don't know if the GOP can represent both wealthy conservatives and middle class conservatives. Then again, I could be reading too much class warfare and class division into the issue.

I support Instant Run-off Voting. I have no idea how our voting systems will handle that. That is an issue.

It wouldn't be that difficult to do. After all, the states decide the electoral laws for the Representatives and the Senators for their state. All it would take is a state law that allows IRV for their Congressmen and Senators.

The only problem is that in cases in which IRV is passed into law, it gets challenged in lawsuits for violating the concept of "one man, one vote." This is because with IRV you are casting several votes, which are then ranked. Until we get judges to recognize the validity of IRV, it won't matter if legislatures pass IRV electoral laws.

 

[samsmart]

Hey, wow, the people taking responsibility and changing the leadership instead of whining about the system!

Well done.

What you fail to realize is that the system inherently makes it difficult to change the leadership. FPTP electoral systems naturally cause two-party systems. Even if the Whigs and the Tea Partiers were able to become the major parties, then that would be current Democrats and current Republicans would likely have to join either the Whig Party or the Tea Party to get viable representation in government. And that would mean that elements of the Democratic Party and elements of the Republican Party would influence the Whig Party and the Tea Party. And all that really is is a name change. So nothing really would change. And I don't think any current Whig or Tea Partier wants that to happen.

 

[misterman]

What you fail to realize is that the system inherently makes it difficult to change the leadership. FPTP electoral systems naturally cause two-party systems.

That's true. I don't have a problem with a two-party system. I'm open to changes though. I'm just noting that people often do so much to avoid responsibility - term limits for example - instead of just using their right to vote.

 

[reefedjib]

Indeed. I'm somewhat interested in the Whigs, although they seem to be more on the conservative end for me to choose personally. However, I do support them gaining strength.

Glad to hear you are interested. A word about positions within the Whigs. We have no explicit issues. We have a philosophy. I am personally, and feel several whigs, are fiscally conservative (shrink deficit, control spending, deal with entitlements, pro-business) and socially moderate or liberal (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-gay military integration, anti-affirmative action, pro-equal opportunity). Foreign policy is a mixed bag (interventionist/non-interventionist, anti-Iraq War/pro-Iraq war <me>, liberal trade policy/tariffs, pro-democracy spreading/isolationism).

My central point is that it is not set in stone. If you join and start participating you have an excellent opportunity to define solutions to you liking and gain support within the party for such. I envision that we have internal splits of opinion around well-defined problems. Ours is focused on solutions, not positions. It is a unique opportunity to be very influential.

It wouldn't be that difficult to do. After all, the states decide the electoral laws for the Representatives and the Senators for their state. All it would take is a state law that allows IRV for their Congressmen and Senators.

The only problem is that in cases in which IRV is passed into law, it gets challenged in lawsuits for violating the concept of "one man, one vote." This is because with IRV you are casting several votes, which are then ranked. Until we get judges to recognize the validity of IRV, it won't matter if legislatures pass IRV electoral laws.

No ****? I didn't realize that there was a judicial challenge to IRV. Hopefully, they can cast it as "one vote per poll", where an IRV vote may encompass several polls in succession.