• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Proportional Representation for the United States?

I think switching from single-seat first-past-the-post districts to party-list proportional representation is too big of a step. Evolution is more likely.

Introducing ranked-choice voting like in Alaska isn't proportional, but it familiarizes voters with choosing and ranking multiple candidates. When that's done, the districts could be made bigger. And that brings you to STV like in Ireland or Australia.

Party-lists, especially open lists, might be good if you have a revolution and can somehow bring up the system from scratch. But they can also fail. Iraq started with PLP, but switched to inferior SNTV because people didn't like the party system. And as for open list like used in Finland, yes, it's better than closed lists... but the people within the list are ranked with SNTV, which is inherently non-proportional. And as far as I know, there's no country in the world that combines party-list proportionality with ranked-choice within a list.
 
The whole business is pointless unless people actually vote. Counting the votes of a third of the population more fairly, still inevitably disenfranchises the other two thirds.

Voting should be made mandatory. Anything else is a recipe for extremism, because only the passionate and opinionated people vote - so the candidates can (and indeed must) pander to them and ignore the rest.
 
“Having a multiparty system in which progressives would be able to have our own Democratic Party and moderate Democrats would be able to have their own Democratic Party would strengthen and cohere the left and make the left a bit more disciplined,” Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats and a member of Fix Our House’s advisory board, says. “Most Democratic voters can’t really tell the difference between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. But if you attach party labels to them, it would help make some of these choices more clear and less about personalities.”

...
UC Berkeley’s Charlotte Hill, another Fix Our House co-founder, agrees. “There’s that famous AOC quote that she shouldn’t be part of the same Democratic Party as a Joe Manchin or other folks to her right,” she says. “I think we certainly see that on the right, as well, although at this point, so many of the more moderate Republicans have proactively retired or been defeated. So there are people who would be able to gain power in a new system.”
Click to expand...
AOC said that in most other countries, she and Joe Biden would not be in the same party.
That would include Never Trump Republicans like Miles Taylor, another Fix Our House advisory board member, who thinks a broad ideological coalition on proportional representation can be forged. “If this was happening 10 years ago, I would’ve been in the camp that said, this is utopian political fantasy and I have no interest in getting involved,” he says. “But so much has changed in the last decade that whether we’re on the left or the right or the center—we’re seeing these same forces in our politics, the forces of extremism, and the resulting gridlock and a deep partisan animus. All these strange bedfellows are coming together and saying, ‘Look, regardless of what our ideology is, we agree that the system needs to be more competitive so that it reflects a diversity of viewpoints better than it does now.’”
Click to expand...
Imagine Greens and Libertarians agreeing on something. :D
 
Which European countries use proportional representation? – Electoral Reform Society – ERS
  • Party-List Proportional Representation -- 33 -- Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine
  • Single Transferable Vote -- 2 -- Ireland and Malta
  • Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -- 2 -- Germany and Hungary
  • Parallel Voting -- 3 -- Andorra, Italy, and Lithuania
That means 40 out of 43. The remaining 3 use single-member districts in their main legislative chamber:
  • First-Past-The-Post -- 2 -- the United Kingdom, Belarus
  • Two-Round System -- 1 -- France
Looking at industrialized countries elsewhere in the world,
  • Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -- 1 -- New Zealand
  • Single Transferable Vote -- 1 -- Australia
  • Parallel Voting -- 3 -- Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
  • Single-Member Districts, First-Past-The-Post -- 2 -- the United States and Canada
 
lpetrich said:
Which European countries use proportional representation? – Electoral Reform Society – ERS
  • Party-List Proportional Representation -- 33 -- Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine
  • Single Transferable Vote -- 2 -- Ireland and Malta
  • Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -- 2 -- Germany and Hungary
  • Parallel Voting -- 3 -- Andorra, Italy, and Lithuania
That means 40 out of 43. The remaining 3 use single-member districts in their main legislative chamber:
  • First-Past-The-Post -- 2 -- the United Kingdom, Belarus
  • Two-Round System -- 1 -- France
Looking at industrialized countries elsewhere in the world,
  • Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -- 1 -- New Zealand
  • Single Transferable Vote -- 1 -- Australia
  • Parallel Voting -- 3 -- Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
  • Single-Member Districts, First-Past-The-Post -- 2 -- the United States and Canada
Click to expand...
Australia uses single member constituency Instant Runoff Voting for our main legislative chamber at both Commonwealth and State level, although there are some minor technical differences between states.

Single Transferable Vote is only used for Senate elections, at the Commonwealth level; I don't know for sure what other states use in their senates/upper houses, but here in Queensland, we don't use any system at all - we have a unicameral legislature.
 
That's correct. I should have noted that I updated the ERS's assessments from the ERS's page, which was published in 2018. I used  List of electoral systems by country - and many countries with bicameral legislatures use different systems for different chambers. The ERS is correct for lower houses, and for Australia, that would be, as you say, single-member district, instant runoff voting.

I looked in Australia's states and territories, and I found:
  • The nation, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia: lower IRV, upper STV
  • Queensland, Northern Territory: IRV
  • Tasmania: lower STV, upper IRV
  • Australian Capital Territory: STV

New Zealand: MMP

Canada
  • The nation: lower FPTP, upper appointed
  • All provinces and territories: FPTP

United Kingdom:
  • The nation: lower FPTP, upper appointed, by official function, or by inheritance
  • England: (none)
  • Scotland, Wales: MMP
  • Northern Ireland: STV
MMP = mixed-member proportional representation

 West Lothian question - a side effect of England not having its own regional government is that the UK Parliament rules on England-only issues
 
Canard DuJour said:
Fun fact : under STV, Jeremy Corbyn would have beaten the Tories in 2017.

www.businessinsider.com

Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister if Britain had a more proportional voting system

The First Past The Post System is producing millions of "wasted votes" and failing to reflect changing voting behaviour, the Electoral Reform Society says.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
Meaning that the Tories won by their opponents splitting their votes.

 Countries of the United Kingdom
  • England: 84%
  • Wales: 5%
  • Scotland: 8%
  • Northern Ireland: 3%
England is most of the UK population but not all of it.

I've seen an interesting solution to the West Lothian question: have England-only sessions of the UK Parliament.
 
I collected numbers for district and list seats for mixed-member and parallel systems:

Mixed:
  • Scotland: 129 -- 73, 56
  • Wales: 60 -- 40, 20
  • Bolivia: 130: -- 70, 60
  • Germany: 598 -- 299, 299 + compensation seats
  • Lesotho: 120 -- 80, 40
  • New Zealand: 120 -- 48, 72 + compensation seats
Parallel:
First one usually FPTP, second one proportional (I've ignored non-proportional ones)
  • Andorra: 28 -- (bloc) 7*2 = 14, 14
  • Cambodia: 123 -- 105, 18
  • Egypt: 596 -- (two-round) 448, 120, (appointed) 28
  • Guinea: 114 -- 38, 76
  • Italy: 630 -- 232, 398 // 315 -- 116, 199 (two chambers)
  • Japan: 475 -- 295. 180 // 169 -- (SNTV) 73, 96 (upper-chamber numbers confusing)
  • Jordan: 150 -- 108, 42
  • Kyrgyzstan: 90 -- 36, 54
  • Lithuania: 141 -- (two-round) 71, 70
  • Madagascar: 151 -- 87, 64
  • Mexico: 500 -- 300, 200
  • Monaco: 24 -- 16, 8
  • Nepal: 275 -- 165, 110
  • Palestine: 132 -- 66, 66
  • Philippines: 304 -- 243, 61 (in 2019)
  • Russia: 450 -- 225, 225
  • Senegal: 165 -- 105, 60
  • Seychelles: 33 -- 25, 8
  • South Korea: 300 -- 253, 47
  • Taiwan: 114 -- 73, 37, (aboriginal: SNTV) 2*3 = 6
  • Tajikistan: 63 -- 41, 22
  • Tanzania: 388 -- 264, 113, 11 (appointed)
  • Thailand: 500 -- 400, 100
  • Venezuela: 165 -- 113, 52
  • Zimbabwe: 270 -- 210, 60

SNTV = single non-transferable vote: vote for one in a multiple-winner election
Equations are (number of districts) * (members per district) = (total)
 
lpetrich said:
Canard DuJour said:
Fun fact : under STV, Jeremy Corbyn would have beaten the Tories in 2017.

www.businessinsider.com

Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister if Britain had a more proportional voting system

The First Past The Post System is producing millions of "wasted votes" and failing to reflect changing voting behaviour, the Electoral Reform Society says.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
Meaning that the Tories won by their opponents splitting their votes.
Click to expand...

More specifically that the electorate preferred Labour over the Tories despite the Tories attaining plurality.

Which is common across social democracies. The biggest minority is typically to the right of the rest of the electorate and elect govts both to the right of the electorate and to the right of themselves under FPTP.

lpetrich said:
 Countries of the United Kingdom

  • England: 84%
  • Wales: 5%
  • Scotland: 8%
  • Northern Ireland: 3%
England is most of the UK population but not all of it.

I've seen an interesting solution to the West Lothian question: have England-only sessions of the UK Parliament.
Click to expand...
 
Jayjay said:
I think switching from single-seat first-past-the-post districts to party-list proportional representation is too big of a step. Evolution is more likely.

Introducing ranked-choice voting like in Alaska isn't proportional, but it familiarizes voters with choosing and ranking multiple candidates. When that's done, the districts could be made bigger. And that brings you to STV like in Ireland or Australia.

Party-lists, especially open lists, might be good if you have a revolution and can somehow bring up the system from scratch. But they can also fail. Iraq started with PLP, but switched to inferior SNTV because people didn't like the party system. And as for open list like used in Finland, yes, it's better than closed lists... but the people within the list are ranked with SNTV, which is inherently non-proportional. And as far as I know, there's no country in the world that combines party-list proportionality with ranked-choice within a list.
Click to expand...
"I think that moving to a system less broken than the old one requires moving to a still-more-broken system that doesn't solve the majority of it's problems, because how can we go from something broken to something not broken?"

When we know a methodology that is functional, and have a methodology that is not, the answer is not to make a bastardized half-functional middle system. The answer is to actually use the solution we have.

"Evolution is more likely" is only true on account of the fact that some people have a vested interest in seeing an arrangement doomed to fail as a "half measure".

To use another simile, this is like saying that the "bucket with gaps" is broken, and a metal bucket has no gaps, so let's move to a metal bucket and cut some gaps in it because a move to a metal bucket without gaps is too much change at once.

It is doomed to fail.

Incremental change is only ethical or wise to call for when the solution is somewhere past the known partial remedies.

When you know something that actually works pretty well, the only people calling for increments instead of application of solutions are those with a vested and conflicted interest to see the solution fail.
 
Jarhyn said:
Jayjay said:
I think switching from single-seat first-past-the-post districts to party-list proportional representation is too big of a step. Evolution is more likely.

Introducing ranked-choice voting like in Alaska isn't proportional, but it familiarizes voters with choosing and ranking multiple candidates. When that's done, the districts could be made bigger. And that brings you to STV like in Ireland or Australia.

Party-lists, especially open lists, might be good if you have a revolution and can somehow bring up the system from scratch. But they can also fail. Iraq started with PLP, but switched to inferior SNTV because people didn't like the party system. And as for open list like used in Finland, yes, it's better than closed lists... but the people within the list are ranked with SNTV, which is inherently non-proportional. And as far as I know, there's no country in the world that combines party-list proportionality with ranked-choice within a list.
Click to expand...
"I think that moving to a system less broken than the old one requires moving to a still-more-broken system that doesn't solve the majority of it's problems, because how can we go from something broken to something not broken?"
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that Iraqis did it. Not that it was a good choice. But it shows that general populace usually can't grasp the subtleties of election systems, so they can make stupid decisions. This is why having acceptance from the voters is crucial for any reform, and there's a lot of mass behind maintaining status quo.

Jarhyn said:
When we know a methodology that is functional, and have a methodology that is not, the answer is not to make a bastardized half-functional middle system. The answer is to actually use the solution we have.

"Evolution is more likely" is only true on account of the fact that some people have a vested interest in seeing an arrangement doomed to fail as a "half measure".

To use another simile, this is like saying that the "bucket with gaps" is broken, and a metal bucket has no gaps, so let's move to a metal bucket and cut some gaps in it because a move to a metal bucket without gaps is too much change at once.

It is doomed to fail.

Incremental change is only ethical or wise to call for when the solution is somewhere past the known partial remedies.

When you know something that actually works pretty well, the only people calling for increments instead of application of solutions are those with a vested and conflicted interest to see the solution fail.
Click to expand...
I don't consider STV with multi-member districts like in Ireland or Australia to be "broken", compared to party-list proportionality. Just different. Both are proportional methods and would solve the main problems of FPTP.

And evolution from FPTP to IRV to STV, which I suggested makes more sense for America, would be an evolutionary and incremental approach, and every step would be better than the last.
 
lpetrich said:
So why doesn't anyone ever talk about proportional representation for the US? In this supposed flagship nation of democracy, that lack of discussion is VERY disappointing. Also disappointing is how many nations outclass the US in quality of democracy by having PR and having other such things, like a parliamentary system and one main legislative chamber or only one.
Click to expand...
Look at the reality--proportional voting can give great power to the extremists when you get things like a 45-45-10 split.
 
This thread discusses ways to improve representation in the U.S. but for two reasons, none of these changes are likely anytime soon.

(1) A polity with a 55-45 split between two parties may get a 55-45 split in the legislature if PR is used, but the dominant party will get significantly MORE than 55% of seats if divided into FPTP districts. This is true even WITHOUT gerrymandering. For example, votes for the two parties in the election to California's lower state house were split 62-38, but the assembly percentages ended up 78-22.

For this reason, the dominant party in a legislature would be acting against its own interests to support PR, or any reforms that would reduce its dominance.

(2) With two parties, the split tends to be roughly 50-50. (Does this tendency have a name? It's related to, but not quite the same as Duverger's law.) For example, the underdog in a two-way race will have motive to move toward his opponent on some issues.

Big change requires super-majorities -- support from both parties -- but any change will work against one of the two parties, at least in the short-term, so that party will not support the change.

Both of these claims assume that representatives will vote in their party's interest rather than in the country's interest. Unfortunately that is increasingly true in the U.S.A.

Some changes can be made with a 51% majority, if that majority is solid enough. But the Democrats have never had a strong majority since the New Deal days. Clinton and Obama ALMOST had necessary majorities for a short while -- but only if the DINO Liebermann was included. Biden had 50 Senators -- but only counting DINOs Manchin and Sinema. Passage of H.R. 1 would have improved American democracy, but the DINO Manchin refused to stop a GOP filibuster. Republicans OTOH have used their solid majorities in several states to make those states even less democratic.

So ... change for the better seems unlikely. Outrage at the grass-roots is the best hope for change but instead America is beset with apathy, a sense of helplessness and misdirected anger.

One specific change which would be VERY helpful is mandatory voting. But AFAIK there's no push for that in the U.S.A. and, anyway, it would be doomed by GOP opposition.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
lpetrich said:
So why doesn't anyone ever talk about proportional representation for the US? In this supposed flagship nation of democracy, that lack of discussion is VERY disappointing. Also disappointing is how many nations outclass the US in quality of democracy by having PR and having other such things, like a parliamentary system and one main legislative chamber or only one.
Click to expand...
Look at the reality--proportional voting can give great power to the extremists when you get things like a 45-45-10 split.
Click to expand...
As if that is only a problem with proportional representation. I can't believe that I'm reading this when only two months earlier that was exactly what happened to the US House of Representatives, elected with mostly first-past-the-post in single-member districts. I remember very well that the "Never Kevin" Republicans refused to vote for him over the whole time, and only allowed him to be elected on the fifteenth vote by voting "Present" -  2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election
 
Loren Pechtel said:
lpetrich said:
So why doesn't anyone ever talk about proportional representation for the US? In this supposed flagship nation of democracy, that lack of discussion is VERY disappointing. Also disappointing is how many nations outclass the US in quality of democracy by having PR and having other such things, like a parliamentary system and one main legislative chamber or only one.
Click to expand...
Look at the reality--proportional voting can give great power to the extremists when you get things like a 45-45-10 split.
Click to expand...
Only if nearly half of the 90% of non-extremists decide to hand it to them.

A vote on a truly extreme measure, in a 45-45-10 legislature, should come out about 90-10 against. If the 10 who hold the balance of power are the only extremists. Of course, if more than 50% of legislators are extremists, you have a major problem regardless of the existence or not of minority parties who are ultra-extreme.
 
Swammerdami said:
This thread discusses ways to improve representation in the U.S. but for two reasons, none of these changes are likely anytime soon.

(1) A polity with a 55-45 split between two parties may get a 55-45 split in the legislature if PR is used, but the dominant party will get significantly MORE than 55% of seats if divided into FPTP districts. This is true even WITHOUT gerrymandering. For example, votes for the two parties in the election to California's lower state house were split 62-38, but the assembly percentages ended up 78-22.
Click to expand...
There is even stronger evidence than that: What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State - Massachusetts | FiveThirtyEight

538 rates the state's districts as D + 17, 22, 26, 26, 28, 30, 34, 50, 73, with a mean of D+34 and a median of D+28

So to give R's a majority in any district would likely require grotesque gerrymandering.

Looking at MA's neighbors, I find Rhode Island: D + 17, 32, mean and median D+24.5, and Connecticut: D + 3, 3, 12, 21, 23, with mean D+12.4 and median D+12.

So one might have more success in gerrymandering to give R's a majority in some CT district, but RI seems as difficult as MA.

For this reason, the dominant party in a legislature would be acting against its own interests to support PR, or any reforms that would reduce its dominance.
Click to expand...
This issue already exists. I've seen the argument that by using nonpartisan redistricting commissions and avoiding gerrymandering, many Democratic-dominated states are committing unilateral disarmament.
 
Swammerdami said:
(2) With two parties, the split tends to be roughly 50-50. (Does this tendency have a name? It's related to, but not quite the same as Duverger's law.) For example, the underdog in a two-way race will have motive to move toward his opponent on some issues.
Click to expand...
Frank DiStefano - YouTube - he has written a book, "The Next Realignment: Why America's Parties Are Crumbling and What Happens Next" - about US political-party realignments

He proposed an interesting theory for this half-half law. A party that gets less than half the votes may try to recruit new constituencies to become part of its coalition, while a party that gets more than half the votes may get complacent about its coalition and not do enough to make everybody happy. Thus, some constituencies may become discontented and stray from that party, joining the other party.


FDS's discussion closely parallels discussion of US political-party systems:
  1. 1796 - 1822 -- Democratic-Republican -- Federalist
  2. 1824 - 1854 -- Democratic -- National Republican, Whig
  3. 1856 - 1894 -- Democratic -- Republican
  4. 1896 - 1930 -- Democratic -- Republican
  5. 1932 - (1960's to 1990's) -- Democratic -- Republican
  6. (1960's to 1990's) - ? -- Democratic -- Republican

However, he does not believe that there was a separate Sixth Party System, but that it is a continuation of the fifth one, but with the Republicans dominant instead of the Democrats.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
lpetrich said:
So why doesn't anyone ever talk about proportional representation for the US? In this supposed flagship nation of democracy, that lack of discussion is VERY disappointing. Also disappointing is how many nations outclass the US in quality of democracy by having PR and having other such things, like a parliamentary system and one main legislative chamber or only one.
Click to expand...
Look at the reality--proportional voting can give great power to the extremists when you get things like a 45-45-10 split.
Click to expand...
Which is why Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are such extremist hellholes. :rolleyes:
 
The biggest problem in US is not proportional or disproportional representation.
The biggest problem is that people you elect don't represent you at all. They represent their donors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom