Who uses proportional representation?

[lpetrich]

Proportional Representation in Most Robust Democracies - FairVote

The following chart lists the different voting systems used by the world's 33 major well-established democracies – defined as countries with high human and political rights ratings and at least two million inhabitants. Forms of proportional representation (PR) are by far the most common.

Of the six nations that use forms of winner-take-all voting to elect representatives for their most powerful national legislative body, only three (Canada, Ghana and the United States) do not use a form of PR for at least one of their national elections; PR is used to elect the senate in Australia and members of the European Parliament in the United Kingdom and France.

The list:

• Proportional: 23
  • Party List: 20 -- Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay
  • Mixed Member: 2 -- Germany, New Zealand
  • Single Transferable Vote: 1 -- Ireland
• Semi-Proportional: 4
  • Parallel Voting (FPTP, PL side-by-side): 4-- Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, Taiwan
• Winner-Take-All: 6
  • First Past The Post: 4 -- Canada, Ghana, United Kingdom, United States
  • Instant Runoff: 1 -- Australia
  • Two-Ballot Top-Two Runoff: 1 -- France

So why is proportional representation supposed to be so bad? At least according to apologists for FPTP.

 

[prideandfall]

So why is proportional representation supposed to be so bad? At least according to apologists for FPTP.

because it tends away from single leader governmental systems, and the types of apologists who want FPTP are the types of people who like the idea of a monarchy or dictatorship.

 

[Lugubert]

So why is proportional representation supposed to be so bad? At least according to apologists for FPTP.

because it tends away from single leader governmental systems, and the types of apologists who want FPTP are the types of people who like the idea of a monarchy or dictatorship.

If that were the case, shouldn't there be lots of monarchists in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden arguing for FPTP? I'm reasonably certain that in all those countries, people think that proportional is the most fair method.

 

[Terrell]

OP how would proportional work if it was done in the United States?

 

[Derec]

OP how would proportional work if it was done in the United States?

Instead of voting for your candidate for House, you vote for the party. The number of representatives from each party is proportional to the number of votes each party gets in a state.
The advantages would be that each person's vote would count (currently very few House districts are competitive), there would be a better correspondence between votes and seats (it would eliminate both unintentional effects of districting as well as intentional gerrymandering), and third parties would get a more meaningful opportunity to gain seats without playing the spoiler.

 

[Terrell]

OP how would proportional work if it was done in the United States?

Instead of voting for your candidate for House, you vote for the party. The number of representatives from each party is proportional to the number of votes each party gets in a state.
The advantages would be that each person's vote would count (currently very few House districts are competitive), there would be a better correspondence between votes and seats (it would eliminate both unintentional effects of districting as well as intentional gerrymandering), and third parties would get a more meaningful opportunity to gain seats without playing the spoiler.

Wouldn't that still make states where there they only get 1 Congressman FPTP winner take all? AK would be an example of a state that only gets 1 member of the House. What happens in states like ME? ME gets 2 Congressmen; if the Democrats win both districts by small margins say 1-5% are both ME Congressmen Democrats?

 

[Jayjay]

Instead of voting for your candidate for House, you vote for the party. The number of representatives from each party is proportional to the number of votes each party gets in a state.
The advantages would be that each person's vote would count (currently very few House districts are competitive), there would be a better correspondence between votes and seats (it would eliminate both unintentional effects of districting as well as intentional gerrymandering), and third parties would get a more meaningful opportunity to gain seats without playing the spoiler.

Wouldn't that still make states where there they only get 1 Congressman FPTP winner take all? AK would be an example of a state that only gets 1 member of the House. What happens in states like ME? ME gets 2 Congressmen; if the Democrats win both districts by small margins say 1-5% are both ME Congressmen Democrats?

Yes, for districts with only one seat, proportional representation (in most systems) is same as FPTP. So for AK you are correct. But for states with more than one seats, even if it were just two, I think the idea is that whole state is a single district. So if democracts win by a small margin, they likely get only one of the two. If they win by large enough margin, or if none of the other parties are big enough, then they might take two.

 

[Terrell]

Wouldn't that still make states where there they only get 1 Congressman FPTP winner take all? AK would be an example of a state that only gets 1 member of the House. What happens in states like ME? ME gets 2 Congressmen; if the Democrats win both districts by small margins say 1-5% are both ME Congressmen Democrats?

Yes, for districts with only one seat, proportional representation (in most systems) is same as FPTP. So for AK you are correct. But for states with more than one seats, even if it were just two, I think the idea is that whole state is a single district. So if democracts win by a small margin, they likely get only one of the two. If they win by large enough margin, or if none of the other parties are big enough, then they might take two.

Why do we change states like ME from 2 winner take all districts to a single district? In such a state why should the Republicans get the same representation when the Democrats have more votes? In such a case Republican representation would be greater than their proportion of the vote, while Democratic representation would be less.

What happens in a presidential election if it no one reaches 270 electoral votes and the Presidency is decided in the House? Each state's Congressional delegation gets 1 vote. What happens in a state like ME if there's 1 congressman of each party, but the Democratic candidate gets the most votes in ME, as has happened in the last 6 elections? Is the Republican congressman, who wouldn't have won either district under the current system, legally obligated to side with the Democratic congressman w/r/t which way ME's vote goes? Is there a national standard there or does each state decide?

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, for districts with only one seat, proportional representation (in most systems) is same as FPTP. So for AK you are correct. But for states with more than one seats, even if it were just two, I think the idea is that whole state is a single district. So if democracts win by a small margin, they likely get only one of the two. If they win by large enough margin, or if none of the other parties are big enough, then they might take two.

Why do we change states like ME from 2 winner take all districts to a single district?

Party list proportional representation kind of requires that you have districts with more than one seats. You could achieve proportional representation some other ways also, and frankly I don't really think the US would scrap 260 years of tradition for such small gains anyway. US might as well do away with states altogether and just split the country in equal-sized districts of 10-20 congressmen each.

In such a state why should the Republicans get the same representation when the Democrats have more votes? In such a case Republican representation would be greater than their proportion of the vote, while Democratic representation would be less.

Well, if we assume democrats get 55% of the vote and republicans 45% (although in party list proportional systems there would likely be smaller parties vying for the extra seat as well), then giving one seat to each in a two seat district is closest you can get to match it. In that case, democrats would be underrepresented by 5 percentage points, and republicans overrepresented by the same amount. But if you were to give both seats to the democrats, then they would be overrepresented by 45 percentage points and republicans underrepresented by the same amount.

The more seats per district, the closer their allocations could be made to match the real proportion of votes.

What happens in a presidential election if it no one reaches 270 electoral votes and the Presidency is decided in the House? Each state's Congressional delegation gets 1 vote. What happens in a state like ME if there's 1 congressman of each party, but the Democratic candidate gets the most votes in ME, as has happened in the last 6 elections? Is the Republican congressman, who wouldn't have won either district under the current system, legally obligated to side with the Democratic congressman w/r/t which way ME's vote goes? Is there a national standard there or does each state decide?

If presidency is decided in the house, then the representative would not decide which way a particular state's vote goes. The two congressmen from ME could vote for different candidates, just as they could now.

 

[Terrell]

Why do we change states like ME from 2 winner take all districts to a single district?

Party list proportional representation kind of requires that you have districts with more than one seats. You could achieve proportional representation some other ways also, and frankly I don't really think the US would scrap 260 years of tradition for such small gains anyway. US might as well do away with states altogether and just split the country in equal-sized districts of 10-20 congressmen each.

In such a state why should the Republicans get the same representation when the Democrats have more votes? In such a case Republican representation would be greater than their proportion of the vote, while Democratic representation would be less.

Well, if we assume democrats get 55% of the vote and republicans 45% (although in party list proportional systems there would likely be smaller parties vying for the extra seat as well), then giving one seat to each in a two seat district is closest you can get to match it. In that case, democrats would be underrepresented by 5 percentage points, and republicans overrepresented by the same amount. But if you were to give both seats to the democrats, then they would be overrepresented by 45 percentage points and republicans underrepresented by the same amount.

The more seats per district, the closer their allocations could be made to match the real proportion of votes.

What happens in a presidential election if it no one reaches 270 electoral votes and the Presidency is decided in the House? Each state's Congressional delegation gets 1 vote. What happens in a state like ME if there's 1 congressman of each party, but the Democratic candidate gets the most votes in ME, as has happened in the last 6 elections? Is the Republican congressman, who wouldn't have won either district under the current system, legally obligated to side with the Democratic congressman w/r/t which way ME's vote goes? Is there a national standard there or does each state decide?

If presidency is decided in the house, then the representative would not decide which way a particular state's vote goes. The two congressmen from ME could vote for different candidates, just as they could now.

I doubt you could get sufficient support to change the way that the Congress works on this level. It would require a constitutional amendment to have any force. I don't trust any interstate compacts since it hasn't been made clear to me how it would hold all states to their agreement.

For the second thing, how do you get the people to agree to expand the House of Representatives to a number larger than it's current 435?

On the third thing. The ME congressional delegation, as a whole, gets 1 vote, not one vote per Congressman. How do you break the tie when they split? The same applies to all the other states. If a Presidential election was decided in the House CA would get the same number of votes as AK or WY. Personally I don't like the idea of CA and WY getting the same number of votes in such a situation, but that would also require a constitutional amendment to fix, and I doubt states like WY or AK would agree.

 

[bilby]

Party list proportional representation kind of requires that you have districts with more than one seats. You could achieve proportional representation some other ways also, and frankly I don't really think the US would scrap 260 years of tradition for such small gains anyway. US might as well do away with states altogether and just split the country in equal-sized districts of 10-20 congressmen each.

In such a state why should the Republicans get the same representation when the Democrats have more votes? In such a case Republican representation would be greater than their proportion of the vote, while Democratic representation would be less.

Well, if we assume democrats get 55% of the vote and republicans 45% (although in party list proportional systems there would likely be smaller parties vying for the extra seat as well), then giving one seat to each in a two seat district is closest you can get to match it. In that case, democrats would be underrepresented by 5 percentage points, and republicans overrepresented by the same amount. But if you were to give both seats to the democrats, then they would be overrepresented by 45 percentage points and republicans underrepresented by the same amount.

The more seats per district, the closer their allocations could be made to match the real proportion of votes.

What happens in a presidential election if it no one reaches 270 electoral votes and the Presidency is decided in the House? Each state's Congressional delegation gets 1 vote. What happens in a state like ME if there's 1 congressman of each party, but the Democratic candidate gets the most votes in ME, as has happened in the last 6 elections? Is the Republican congressman, who wouldn't have won either district under the current system, legally obligated to side with the Democratic congressman w/r/t which way ME's vote goes? Is there a national standard there or does each state decide?

If presidency is decided in the house, then the representative would not decide which way a particular state's vote goes. The two congressmen from ME could vote for different candidates, just as they could now.

I doubt you could get sufficient support to change the way that the Congress works on this level. It would require a constitutional amendment to have any force. I don't trust any interstate compacts since it hasn't been made clear to me how it would hold all states to their agreement.

For the second thing, how do you get the people to agree to expand the House of Representatives to a number larger than it's current 435?

On the third thing. The ME congressional delegation, as a whole, gets 1 vote, not one vote per Congressman. How do you break the tie when they split? The same applies to all the other states. If a Presidential election was decided in the House CA would get the same number of votes as AK or WY. Personally I don't like the idea of CA and WY getting the same number of votes in such a situation, but that would also require a constitutional amendment to fix, and I doubt states like WY or AK would agree.

I would imagine that any change away from a 'winner takes all' process would also require a change to the Presidential election process; Obviously that would need a constitutional amendment, but that's not unachievable - The US Constitution has been amended before, and will be again.

The electoral college is a hangover from a pre-industrial era, and needs to be scrapped anyway. You could easily have the POTUS directly elected by IRV or by a simple majority FPTP vote - IRV would IMO be a better option, as it would help to reduce the effect of Duverger's Law (Obviously the Presidential race can only be 'winner takes all', as there is only one POTUS at a time).

I rather like the Australian system for electing Reps; IRV allows people to vote against the candidate(s) they despise, as well as voting for candidates they like (or can tolerate), while maintaining the direct representation by district that is the main strength of 'Winner takes all' systems; It also allows voters to reject individual candidates who may be influential enough within a party to get a spot near the top of the list, but who are personally unpopular with the wider electorate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does the US tell other countries how to run their governments?!

Then shut up and ...

... oh ....

nevermind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZiprHead]

Ninja'd by Bilby.

You are the man at least until GMB gets home.

 

[Terrell]

Party list proportional representation kind of requires that you have districts with more than one seats. You could achieve proportional representation some other ways also, and frankly I don't really think the US would scrap 260 years of tradition for such small gains anyway. US might as well do away with states altogether and just split the country in equal-sized districts of 10-20 congressmen each.

In such a state why should the Republicans get the same representation when the Democrats have more votes? In such a case Republican representation would be greater than their proportion of the vote, while Democratic representation would be less.

Well, if we assume democrats get 55% of the vote and republicans 45% (although in party list proportional systems there would likely be smaller parties vying for the extra seat as well), then giving one seat to each in a two seat district is closest you can get to match it. In that case, democrats would be underrepresented by 5 percentage points, and republicans overrepresented by the same amount. But if you were to give both seats to the democrats, then they would be overrepresented by 45 percentage points and republicans underrepresented by the same amount.

The more seats per district, the closer their allocations could be made to match the real proportion of votes.

What happens in a presidential election if it no one reaches 270 electoral votes and the Presidency is decided in the House? Each state's Congressional delegation gets 1 vote. What happens in a state like ME if there's 1 congressman of each party, but the Democratic candidate gets the most votes in ME, as has happened in the last 6 elections? Is the Republican congressman, who wouldn't have won either district under the current system, legally obligated to side with the Democratic congressman w/r/t which way ME's vote goes? Is there a national standard there or does each state decide?

If presidency is decided in the house, then the representative would not decide which way a particular state's vote goes. The two congressmen from ME could vote for different candidates, just as they could now.

I doubt you could get sufficient support to change the way that the Congress works on this level. It would require a constitutional amendment to have any force. I don't trust any interstate compacts since it hasn't been made clear to me how it would hold all states to their agreement.

For the second thing, how do you get the people to agree to expand the House of Representatives to a number larger than it's current 435?

On the third thing. The ME congressional delegation, as a whole, gets 1 vote, not one vote per Congressman. How do you break the tie when they split? The same applies to all the other states. If a Presidential election was decided in the House CA would get the same number of votes as AK or WY. Personally I don't like the idea of CA and WY getting the same number of votes in such a situation, but that would also require a constitutional amendment to fix, and I doubt states like WY or AK would agree.

I would imagine that any change away from a 'winner takes all' process would also require a change to the Presidential election process; Obviously that would need a constitutional amendment, but that's not unachievable - The US Constitution has been amended before, and will be again.

The electoral college is a hangover from a pre-industrial era, and needs to be scrapped anyway. You could easily have the POTUS directly elected by IRV or by a simple majority FPTP vote - IRV would IMO be a better option, as it would help to reduce the effect of Duverger's Law (Obviously the Presidential race can only be 'winner takes all', as there is only one POTUS at a time).

I rather like the Australian system for electing Reps; IRV allows people to vote against the candidate(s) they despise, as well as voting for candidates they like (or can tolerate), while maintaining the direct representation by district that is the main strength of 'Winner takes all' systems; It also allows voters to reject individual candidates who may be influential enough within a party to get a spot near the top of the list, but who are personally unpopular with the wider electorate.

I agree that the Constitution will be amended on some thing at some point in the future.

I'm not sure how you get the smaller states on board with something that reduces their voice in the election. Each state gets Electoral votes equal to it's number of Senators plus it's Congressmen. This gives the smaller states more say in said elections than their population represents. I just don't think the senators from those states would vote for such an amendment & their state legislators would likely not vote for it's ratification. I don't think that the Electoral College is going anywhere because it's not in the smaller states interest to allow it.

IRV, I'm not really sure how I feel about that. I do think you'd need some federal legislation, at the very least, to hold all states to this. I'm not sure that will happen, but it would be an interesting thing to see voted on.

 

[lpetrich]

Here are the prospects, I think.

The Federal Government? Without a Constitutional amendment, that can be done state-by-state for the US House of Representatives. It might be nice to see what new parties emerge in the bigger states, like California.

For the states, it may require amending some state constitutions, but that is usually easier than amending the US one. That is one of the world's hardest to amend, it must be pointed out.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Proportional Representation in Most Robust Democracies - FairVote

The following chart lists the different voting systems used by the world's 33 major well-established democracies – defined as countries with high human and political rights ratings and at least two million inhabitants. Forms of proportional representation (PR) are by far the most common.

Of the six nations that use forms of winner-take-all voting to elect representatives for their most powerful national legislative body, only three (Canada, Ghana and the United States) do not use a form of PR for at least one of their national elections; PR is used to elect the senate in Australia and members of the European Parliament in the United Kingdom and France.

The list:

• Proportional: 23
  • Party List: 20 -- Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay
  • Mixed Member: 2 -- Germany, New Zealand
  • Single Transferable Vote: 1 -- Ireland
• Semi-Proportional: 4
  • Parallel Voting (FPTP, PL side-by-side): 4-- Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, Taiwan
• Winner-Take-All: 6
  • First Past The Post: 4 -- Canada, Ghana, United Kingdom, United States
  • Instant Runoff: 1 -- Australia
  • Two-Ballot Top-Two Runoff: 1 -- France

So why is proportional representation supposed to be so bad? At least according to apologists for FPTP.

In the UK it means that a party can win a landslide victory with less than 40 per cent of the votes.

 

[Sarpedon]

All one has to do is look at Israel to see how bad a factionally divided proportional representational system can get. If no party can form a government on its own, it can be held hostage by extremist parties. In Israel's case, it has its extreme religious parties, who are happy to belong to any government, so long as it gives them their perks: Welfare to their 'religious schools' students, who leave with no practical skills and often spend the rest of their days in religious studies subsidized by the government. Exemption from mandatory military service. Control over Israel's state religious system, just today, the Knesset reaffirmed a 2 yr prison penalty for any (Jewish) Israeli who gets married by anyone but a state-approved rabbi. The majority of Israelis oppose these measures, but such is the influence of this group in the fractured political system that this sort of nonsense is a continuing erosion of the rights of non-orthodox israelis.

In the USA, we do have single issue voters who wield excessive power, but the need for parties to form broad coalitions prior to elections (rather than after them) leads to compromises that are far easier to swallow.

The key difference between first past the post and proportional systems is when the coalition building takes place; before the elections or after them. I have to say I prefer getting the coalition platform before casting my vote, rather than being surprised at what precisely the party of my choice sold out on to gain a recalcitrant coalition member.