Proportional representation

[pecksniff]

We don't have the PR that you and most on the left want. You want it based strictly on a per head count.

Ermm, yeah, that's democracy. Britain has never had any reason to regret scrapping the pre-reform principle that "Parliament represents land, not people."

And, a shift to PR favors the left no more than the right.

You think you can then get a simple majority and trample on those that you don't agree with.

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.

The framers were aware of this and this was one of their fears with a direct democracy. They wanted to create a system that allowed for groups with many different ideas finding common grounds, rather than a large majority in a few densely packed cities trampling three quarters of the country. That's why we ha a bi-cameral legislature. It's why initially you could have a president and VP from differing parties. It allowed for more voices to be represented.

The most important point made in the Federalist Papers was that the sheer size of the United States would prevent any "faction" from dominating the system. (An important point at the time, because all previous examples of republican government had been small-scale, city-states or small provinces.) PR would not interfere with that, would, to the contrary, make it that much more difficult for any faction (or, as we would say nowadays, party) to leverage a hair-thin majority into institutional power. No party would ever have a majority anywhere.

 

[WillJ8787]

Jefferson, in fact, recommended that the Constitution be scrapped and rewritten every 20 years, on the grounds that you cannot expect a man to wear a boy's jacket.

Correct.... exactly what I was referring to...and we can cite many example in the Constitution that need re-writing:

Amendment 1....free speech....to reexamine technology and social media sources, is all speech protected even disinformation, misinformation, and non-factual speech(when intent is to disrupt or displace opposing political views or to disrupt, replace, undermine or overthrow the governmental system).

Amendment 2....lack of gun control and regulations in civilized society.

Among many others

 

[oggbashan]

PR wouldn't affect the fact that the two major parties in the US (and UK) have vastly more resources than any third or minority party.

How much money is spent on Presidential elections?

One of my daughters, and a niece, stood for election to their local councils for the Green Party. Each had to fund their own campaigns since the Greens couldn't afford the cost.

My niece was elected and is now in her third term as a local councillor.

My daughter came a creditable third to the Labour (elected) and Conservative candidates but she didn't get a third of the votes (nor did the other 14 candidates), and she lost her £500 deposit - out of her own pocket.

If the US had PR, no third or other party could match the amount of money the Republicans and Democrast have to spend on elections.

 

[pecksniff]

PR wouldn't affect the fact that the two major parties in the US (and UK) have vastly more resources than any third or minority party.

How much money is spent on Presidential elections?

One of my daughters, and a niece, stood for election to their local councils for the Green Party. Each had to fund their own campaigns since the Greens couldn't afford the cost.

My niece was elected and is now in her third term as a local councillor.

My daughter came a creditable third to the Labour (elected) and Conservative candidates but she didn't get a third of the votes (nor did the other 14 candidates), and she lost her £500 deposit - out of her own pocket.

If the US had PR, no third or other party could match the amount of money the Republicans and Democrast have to spend on elections.

They only have that money because they have donors -- many of whom could be persuaded to move their funding to a different party, if electoral reform made it a real possibility for that party to win some elections.

 

[GothTalk]

Historically, the polices that destroy nations and societies are those that produce massive inequalities in wealth and power.

No....those are the policies that build them and make them prosperous.

Allowing people to be successful (produce massive inequities in wealth and power) is a GOOD thing.

The policies that seek to punish the successful and prevent anymore else from becoming successful in the name of equity and collectivism??

Are the ones who destroy nations and societies.

 

[pecksniff]

No....those are the policies that build them and make them prosperous.

Allowing people to be successful (produce massive inequities in wealth and power) is a GOOD thing.

The policies that seek to punish the successful and prevent anymore else from becoming successful in the name of equity and collectivism??

Are the ones who destroy nations and societies.

Actually, the only thing that ever actually destroys nations and societies is foreign conquest, and, in some few primitive cases, environmental change (the Maya, the Anasazi). Otherwise, a society, as a society, can survive pretty much anything. China remains China despite having been through the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and everything else.

But massive inequities in wealth and power destabilize a status quo -- make a society ripe for revolution.

 

[oggbashan]

They only have that money because they have donors -- many of whom could be persuaded to move their funding to a different party, if electoral reform made it a real possibility for that party to win some elections.

In your dreams.

PR means that those with the money still win and others might get a few useless seats. The money will stay with the major parties.

 

[GothTalk]

Actually, the only thing that ever actually destroys nations and societies is foreign conquest

Nope, internal/self destruction is more common.

, and, in some few primitive cases, environmental change (the Maya, the Anasazi).

That's true. But exceedingly rare.

Otherwise, a society, as a society, can survive pretty much anything. China remains China despite having been through the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and everything else.

Only because they were already prone to and culturally accepted that type of society.....it's not all that dissimilar to the one they've had for thousands of years.

There are other nations, like the USA, where that is not the case.

But massive inequities in wealth and power destabilize a status quo -- make a society ripe for revolution.

Only if you're dumb enough to give them the power to do so.

In a free society you have to be ok with other people prospering, or you go to jail.

 

[pecksniff]

Nope, internal/self destruction is more common.

No, that has never happened. Ever.

 

[GothTalk]

No, that has never happened. Ever.

You're delusional and ignoring most of human history from the Mesopotamians to the USA today.

 

[pecksniff]

You're delusional and ignoring most of human history from the Mesopotamians to the USA today.

A time period which includes many civilizations destroyed by foreign conquest -- and none at all by internal collapse.

There is the Indus River Valley civilization -- nobody really knows what happened to it -- probably some environmental change. It was only some time later that India was invaded by the Aryans.

And the Minoan civilization of Crete -- probably weakened by earthquakes and conquered by Greeks.

 

[WillJ8787]

No, that has never happened. Ever.

He is using "alternative facts".

 

[GothTalk]

He is using "alternative facts".

No, historical ones.

 

[GothTalk]

-- and none at all by internal collapse.

Again, you're ignoring most of human history.

Even modern history..... N Korea, Venezuela, USSR, British Empire, Roman empire etc. etc.

 

[pecksniff]

No, historical ones.

Then give us some examples of civilizations that self-destructed from purely internal forces, without foreign conquest.

 

[pecksniff]

Again, you're ignoring most of human history.

Even modern history..... N Korea, Venezuela, USSR, British Empire, Roman empire etc. etc.

The Roman Empire fell to foreign conquest. The USSR collapsed only as a Communist state -- Russia as a nation survived, as did all the other constituent nations. The British Empire simply let go of its colonies after confronting the fact that they were not turning a profit -- having them was more a matter of prestige than anything else -- and the UK itself remains what it was. Venezuela is fucked up right now but nowhere near self-destruction as a nation. North Korea might well remain what it is now long after you and I are dead, and even if it doesn't, Korea will survive.

A nation is not its political constitution. France was not destroyed by its 1789 revolution or any of the later ones.

 

[GothTalk]

The Roman Empire fell to foreign conquest.

Because a few hundred years of corruption and deceit left it weak and falling apart.

The USSR collapsed only as a Communist state --

Still an internal collapse.

Russia as a nation survived, as did all the other constituent nations.

All sad husks of what they once were and barely recognizable and nothing like their former pre-USSR days.

The British Empire simply let go of its colonies after confronting the fact that they were not turning a profit -- having them was more a matter of prestige than anything else --

I'm glad you understand it was an internal collapse.

and the UK itself remains what it was.

Not what it was. Wildly different. Not even remotely close to the same.

Venezuela is fucked up right now but nowhere near self-destruction as a nation.

It's already happened man. You not paying attention didn't mean it's not out the door already.

North Korea might well remain what it is now long after you and I are dead, and even if it doesn't, Korea will survive.

Only so long as China continues to keep it as a pet.

And there is no "Korea".

A nation is not its political constitution.

No, but it is it's culture and people, which includes their politics.

 

[Champakian]

Peck is arguing for political instability. An instability which he believes is with him.

A government built upon coalitions necessary under PR
are always at the mercy of their minority members
who can throw a hissy-fit and withdraw at any
time; a tyranny of the minority: paralysis.

At least under our system, a governing
majority can impose the will of the
(temporary) majority that they
accrued, but could easily lose,
so that will better be pretty
damned moderate...

 

[pecksniff]

Peck is arguing for political instability. An instability which he believes is with him.

Not at all. In a single-member-district, two-party system, a single election can mean a drastic change in the balance of power. "Realigning elections" are commonplace -- and can be caused by a change in the aggregate partisan vote totals of just two or three percent, as in the 1994 Republican Revolution.

In a PR system, the several parties form a pie graph, and an election only means a party moving the borders of its slice a little bit this way or that. Much more stable and predictable. If the Greens have 20% of the legislative seats this year, you can be fairly certain they will have no more than 25% and no less than 15% ten years from now. Realignment happens, but it moves slowly, on a generational time-scale.

A government built upon coalitions necessary under PR
are always at the mercy of their minority members
who can throw a hissy-fit and withdraw at any
time; a tyranny of the minority: paralysis.

Not in a separation-of-powers system. No need to "form a government." Any "coalition" between two or more parties can be momentary and issue-specific. The Libertarians might vote with the Greens on bill A and against them on bill B.

 

[oggbashan]

...


Not in a separation-of-powers system. No need to "form a government." Any "coalition" between two or more parties can be momentary and issue-specific. The Libertarians might vote with the Greens on bill A and against them on bill B.

That has been tried in European systems and doesn't work. Either the government has a majority and can plan legislation, or it doesn't. If it doesn't but only a day to day agreement, it won't last more than a week.

You are still posting as if Proportional representation would solve all the US's ills. It won't. It is just another voting system and the current voting systems vary by state. It would require rewriting the US constitution and for what? Something worse?

 

[pecksniff]

That has been tried in European systems and doesn't work. Either the government has a majority and can plan legislation, or it doesn't. If it doesn't but only a day to day agreement, it won't last more than a week.

Separation-of-powers system -- the governor or president remains in office regardless of what happens in the legislature.

You are still posting as if Proportional representation would solve all the US's ills.

Certainly not. It would improve democracy as democracy -- the legislatures would more exactly represent the whole range of political views among the voters. What that would solve or not solve depends on the content of those views.

It would require rewriting the US constitution and for what?

No, the House of Representatives could be changed over to PR by legislation, no constitutional amendment required. The Senate would remain elected as now -- any change there would require an amendment.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm sorry. What you are suggesting is a mess that wouldn't work. The legislature would be paralysed and the President can't do everything by Executive order.

Either you have complete PR (which I don't recommend) including for presidential elections as in France where the first and second candidates who have won the most votes and transfers then take part in a second election with Winner is elected, or none at all.

But France and most of Europe have decades of experience in PR. Their experiences have been unbalancing for their countries.

I still don't understand why you want a system that has serious flaws. The US has political problems. PR would probably make them worse.

 

[Rightguide]

The Roman Empire fell to foreign conquest. The USSR collapsed only as a Communist state -- Russia as a nation survived, as did all the other constituent nations. The British Empire simply let go of its colonies after confronting the fact that they were not turning a profit -- having them was more a matter of prestige than anything else -- and the UK itself remains what it was. Venezuela is fucked up right now but nowhere near self-destruction as a nation. North Korea might well remain what it is now long after you and I are dead, and even if it doesn't, Korea will survive.

A nation is not its political constitution. France was not destroyed by its 1789 revolution or any of the later ones.

Here one gets a glimpse into the workings of Peck's mind. No doubt his cognitive distortions of history become useful to him when it comes time to weave them into misinterpretations of current emerging events to fit his favorite political narrative.

 

[pecksniff]

I'm sorry. What you are suggesting is a mess that wouldn't work. The legislature would be paralysed and the President can't do everything by Executive order.

Why would it be paralyzed? A multiparty Congress would just be another form of checks and balances -- a party does not get its way all the time just because it holds the majority, because none would, which means anybody who wants to get anything done -- and most Congresscritters do -- would have to reach out to other parties to hammer out compromises.

Either you have complete PR (which I don't recommend) including for presidential elections as in France where the first and second candidates who have won the most votes and transfers then take part in a second election with Winner is elected, or none at all.

That's not PR, which only works for multimember assemblies, it's instant-runoff voting -- also worth adopting, but a different matter. (IRV would have prevented Ross Perot and Ralph Nader from playing "spoiler" roles.)

But France and most of Europe have decades of experience in PR. Their experiences have been unbalancing for their countries.

I do not see how they are "unbalanced," nor how things go any better under the UK's single-member-district system.

 

[oggbashan]

Why would it be paralyzed? A multiparty Congress would just be another form of checks and balances -- a party does not get its way all the time just because it holds the majority, because none would, which means anybody who wants to get anything done -- and most Congresscritters do -- would have to reach out to other parties to hammer out compromises.

Under PR, no party is likely to have a clear majority. They would have to compromise which means endless negotiation with minority groups that have their own agendas. Legislation becomes almost impossible or long delayed.

I do not see how they are "unbalanced," nor how things go any better under the UK's single-member-district system.

You don't see because you have never experienced it. We have - in EU elections before Brexit. I have not said our system is 'better' but it usually provides a clear result and a stable government - which PR doesn't do.

I have finished with this thread. You have not taken on board any of the disadvantages of PR and seem convinced you are always right. You're not and you re learning nothing. Bye.