Proportional representation

[pecksniff]

And any member of the peoples party or progressive caucus is absolutely fine with allowing poor people to starve our of respect for private property!!

What's that got to do with this?

False equivalency.

Not at all. The Suffragettes seemed like dangerous radicals in their time, upending centuries of assumptions about proper gender roles -- public sphere for men, domestic sphere for women. "But we've never done things that way!" PR is a much less radical change than that.

43 states tell you go fuck yourself with your PR bullshit.

What do you do now peck??

You try it in the remaining seven. Depending on how it works out there, the other 43 might eventually reconsider.

That is exactly how the 19th Amendment was passed -- some states out West tried letting women vote, and society didn't collapse, and all of a sudden it didn't seem like such a radical idea any more.

 

[Cubantripod]

Well, that's a ballot-access problem. As pointed out in the OP, we could liberalize those laws -- we could make the presence of the Libertarian candidate on the ballot automatic, instead of requiring a certain number of petition signatures, a bar the major two parties do not have to clear -- but the mechanics of single-member-district representation would still produce a two-party system with all other parties marginalized.

The problem is that ever since Perot cost the Republicans the White House twice and Ralph Nader cost Gore the White House, the duopoly has been united in making sure that third party candidates have a difficult time getting on the ballot. Did you notice how it was a lot harder for third party candidates this time around as opposed to 2016?

 

[GothTalk]

Not at all.

Absolutely.

Removing discrimination from a system is a wildly different thing than totally shit canning the entire system and replacing it with somethin else.

You try it in the remaining seven.

Never happening.... leftist don't have it in them to ever put their money where their mouths are and do "progress" in their own states.

Depending on how it works out there, the other 43 might eventually reconsider.

Maybe a couple, but probably not any of the red ones, and red will just dominate the fucking shit out of the several micro parties.

That is exactly how the 19th Amendment was passed -- some states out West tried letting women vote, and society didn't collapse, and all of a sudden it didn't seem like such a radical idea any more.

Of course.... like I said, good luck getting 2/3 of the states to do that considering the near supermajority and in 2 years likely the super majority of states are red and with near absolute consistence tell you to fuck off with your PR.

 

[oggbashan]

Neither the Republicans nor teh Democrats are likely to vote for a system which means they would lose power.

 

[pecksniff]

The problem is that ever since Perot cost the Republicans the White House twice and Ralph Nader cost Gore the White House, the duopoly has been united in making sure that third party candidates have a difficult time getting on the ballot. Did you notice how it was a lot harder for third party candidates this time around as opposed to 2016?

Of course that would not have happened if we had instant-runoff voting -- a different thing from PR -- it's for filling one office, and avoids the "spoiler" problem. You rank the candidates in order of preference, and if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice.

 

[ll74]

Neither the Republicans nor teh Democrats are likely to vote for a system which means they would lose power.

Spot on.

 

[pecksniff]

Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!

 

[pecksniff]

Problem is, there isn't even a significant movement for PR in America at present. FairVote was originally founded as "CPR" -- "Citizens for Proportional Representation" -- but even they appear to have dropped that for goals more reachable.

In fact, few Americans have even heard of PR. I once asked a candidate for office about her opinion on it, and she thought I was talking about the form of gerrymandering meant to empower racial minorities.

It is at least conceivable that all the disparate third parties in America, from Libertarians to Communists, would join forces to campaign for PR, the one issue that would benefit all of them, but I see no sign of that on the horizon.

 

[pecksniff]

Neither the Republicans nor teh Democrats are likely to vote for a system which means they would lose power.

As parties they would lose power -- but each is composed of individuals who might smell enticing career prospects in some new party.

 

[GothTalk]

You're not getting rid of American Democracy any time soon.

 

[pecksniff]

You're not getting rid of American Democracy any time soon.

PR wouldn't do that.

 

[GothTalk]

PR wouldn't do that.

 

[pecksniff]

It is only a rather more democratic form of democracy.

 

[Chernosoth]

Neither the Republicans nor teh Democrats are likely to vote for a system which means they would lose power.

They lost power. Corporations are their masters now.

 

[oggbashan]

It is only a rather more democratic form of democracy.

Not necessarily. It depends on which form of proportional representation is considered. It means possibly that some minor parties might get elected but their influence can be minimal or useless.

 

[Champakian]

There's always a certain level of bitching on this board about the limited options available in a two-party system.

But, the mechanics of a single-member-district representation system naturally produce a two-party system. Suppose in your state's next legislative elections, 20% of the voters vote Green (or Libertarian, Socialist, substitute your own favorite third party). How many Greens get into the legislature? None, because there are not enough Green voters in any one district to form a majority or even a plurality.

Changing ballot-access laws to make it easier for third-party candidates to get on the ballot won't change that. The only way to change it is proportional representation.

On the other hand, a two party system is a great guard against radicalism.

You know, like National Socialism...

 

[Champakian]

I should probably elucidate; a lot of people don't really get it.

When you have the two choices of party (that count;
as a Libertarian, I realize how little my vote means)

This keeps both parties firmly focused on the center,
i.e., the majority of voters and precludes radical
parties from siphoning off votes because the
majority is not radical and if one party drifts from
the center, then the other party bid (for power) is
the natural "parity bit" (correction).

It also prevent the cobbling together of a government
that does not enjoy true majority support or, for
the Presidency, the Senate or the House to
act as checks and balances on each other.

(I don't know if this has been pointed out
already, I really haven't perused the thread.)

 

[GothTalk]

It is only a rather more democratic form of democracy.

Repugnant to the promise of a republican form of government, article 4 sec 4.

It's un-American.

 

[colddiesel]

Peck smith cannot point to a single example of PR working well. There are many examples of it working badly. In Israel for example, extreme religious conservatives permanently hold the balance of power and cannot be ousted.

A single transferable preference system is far better than PR because whoever is elected has to get 50% +1 to get elected.

 

[Champakian]

That's what I alluded to in the general.

Thanks for a specific; very helpful.

 

[GothTalk]

Peck smith cannot point to a single example of PR working well. There are many examples of it working badly. In Israel for example, extreme religious conservatives permanently hold the balance of power and cannot be ousted.

A single transferable preference system is far better than PR because whoever is elected has to get 50% +1 to get elected.

Considering Israel is a religious state founded for the Jewish people to have a Jewish nation, not to be a "progressive" nation for western leftist to destroy and render totallymeaninglessness and devoid of Judaism... is it not working well for them?

 

[Champakian]

Are you sure?

Compared Muslim nations, they're more tolerant of Islam than visa versa...

 

[pecksniff]

On the other hand, a two party system is a great guard against radicalism.

You know, like National Socialism...

Again:

Some people fear moving from a two-party system to a multiparty system because they see it as empowering extremists.

But I see it as empowering the center.

What a proportional representation system does is make the elected representatives more exactly represent the range of political views of the voters -- and a lot of people are centrists.

So, here's a possible scenario: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, and neither has enough votes to form a majority, no bill can ever pass Congress or any state legislature without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

 

[pecksniff]

Repugnant to the promise of a republican form of government, article 4 sec 4.

It's un-American.

That clause simply guarantees every state a republican form of government -- so nobody could make himself the Grand Duke of Virginia or whatever.

A republic that uses PR is a republic.

 

[pecksniff]

Peck smith cannot point to a single example of PR working well.

Pretty much every country in continental Europe.

Sure, Italy goes through three new governments a year, but that's not so much a matter of political system as political culture.