Would you favor Proportional Representation for Congressional elections?

[newfaceinhell]

If the current voting system for the House of Representatives could be replaced with a form of Proportional Representation- i.e. an electoral system whereby parties recieve roughly the same proportion of seats in the house as they do votes in the country- would you support such a move?

Some information on different types of PR: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm

Or, if not PR, would you be in favor of less extensive reform, such introducing Instant Runoff Voting or a similar system?

In the past, I've been opposed to Proportional representation but supportive of IRV- however, I've recently been moving more towards a position of favoring some form of all-out PR. I really like the "Open List" system described at the above site (I seem to remember a Finnish DUer also recommending this sytem here last week), as in comparison to some other forms of PR, it seems relatively simple and ensures each individual representative can be held directly accountable to the electorate.

Anyway, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[damntexdem]

1. It's a no-brainer.

And it has no chance -- many of those who would have to legislate it in would stand little chance under it.

[cyclezealot]

3. It is up to us..

In many states does not have to be legislated...We have the right to do this under the initiative process...

[cyclezealot]

2. PRis not radical.

Unless you describe radical as facilitating democratic institutions..why not , should the profile of elected officials reflect the actual vote ? not a radical idea at all.
unless your goal is to buy elections. only way to bring representative government to America...
guess, by the nature of the US senate..that could not be applied to that house...but the US House, could very well be done..
I understand in California in the 80's such a proposition was put on the ballot..voted down overwhealmingly.. people just buy into those lobbysists paid for tv ads...
I would love to see a more representative congress...some libertarians and greens to keep the major parties honest..also, the only way to have vibrant elections..
but, in the US we have some areas loaded with nuts..might get a one or two neo-nazis here and there..
but, I like the fact the electoral results are honest and we know how we all really feel..
a ps...do we all realize..you total the Democratic/repug vote cast in all states for US Senate races last year...the Democratic vote was like %53...

[newfaceinhell]

6. fair point- "radical" was a poorly chosen word

I've edited my original message to change it. Thanks for an interesting post, I agree there is a danger of extremist parties gaining some representation but as you say at least it be an honest reflection- if we get to the stage where Nazis are getting elected, this country will have far deeper problems than its electoral system.

[cyclezealot]

21. don't agree Nazi's getting elected is maybe not a bad thing..

first. It reflects the public's views..not a bad thing..better to know how we really feel...and , I think it is better to air your dirty laundry- so, hopefully exposing such brings about humiliation and public rejection to hate..Instead of just pretending it does not exist...
Second...for the vote to reflect the public sentiment...Gerrmandering would be a thing of the past. this would be good for Democrats in terms of electoral politics...what..Might loose one Congress seat in Massachusetts ( when we get away from winner take all..) but we would pick up 2-3 seats in states like Florida, Texas, Georgia. and those states might finally produces some real progressives elected in proportion to their numbers...
Democrats might have to become honest to keep their Green allies/ but they would always be closer to attaining a majority position,since this country is really like 50/50 red/blue.

[newfaceinhell]

42. I do tend to agree that congress should reflect public sentiment,

however offensive or dangerous some of us may find such sentiments. My fear however would be that if an overtly fascist party gained representation in the house, they might not be greeted with universal humiliation and rejection; in fact, I fear the GOP might be all too willing to work with them in order to secure a majority. On the basis of, say, 5% of the vote, we could see extreme right-wingers (or rather, even more extreme right-wingers than we're already stuck with) holding some important commitee posts, which they recieve as their price for supporting a GOP leadership.

But it cuts both ways, of course. The way would also be open for radically left-wing parties to demand a similar price from the dems, which could be a very good thing. And then there are the Libertarians, who might be unwilling to support a GOP leadership that was also allied with overt Fascists.

On the other hand, we could place bottom limits on the percentage of the vote required to win a seat. If it was, say, 5%, this would be a reasonable target for the Greens and Libertarians, but might exclude more extreme parties. To be honest, i'm not sure I'm comfortable with that either; it rather rings of trying to protect democracy from itself.

[cyclezealot]

51. GOPERs are authorian.

and that incorporates some aspects of neo-nazi behavior..so we have them in power all ready..hence the Patriot act II...

[cser]

4. Lose the game, change the rules

Why not play the game better?

[newfaceinhell]

9. speaking for myself, this is really not an issue of partisan advantage

I want to see the fairest possible electoral system identified and implemented; even when Bill Clinton was winning elections I was firmly in favor of "changing the rules" and introducing IRV for presidential elections. To be honest, I think it's hard to predict who would see the most benefit from PR in the long term, because it's hard to predict how well the Greens, Libertarians etc would do under a system that made them electorally viable. But, for better or worse, the days of outright majorities would probably be consigned to history for both the GOP and the Democrats.

[cyclezealot]

23. you fail to understand the nature of the 'game.'

this system is not representative...The winner takes all allows minority candidates to win when they do not reflect the will of the majority...pr reflects the actual vote...this system is rigged against the public will...can't play a better game,when the rules are unfair...

[dcfirefighter]

5. We who support PR

should push to have it incorporated in every vote we make, from the neighborhood club to the national elections. Start at the bottom, and make PR the de facto standard everywhere.

[cser]

7. As a black gay woman

who chooses to live in the gay friendly state of Maryland, why should my vote compete with a racist cracker from, say, Georgia?

[newfaceinhell]

8. agreed

As Damntexdem said, it's just not in the interests of those who already have power to change the way in which they obtain it. So we can't expect any reform from above on this one. You make a great point about the need to make PR standard for votes at all levels- i think a big problem at the moment is that the current sytem is seen by most people as completely natural- even though the seats to votes ratio it delivers is, in a sense, very unnatural.

[kevsand]

10. If I understand this correctly,

in order to have PR we would need multi-member districts. That necessarily means one of two things, either: 1) significantly more representatives, or 2) bigger districts. I don't see either of those options as providing sufficient additional benefit to outweigh their obvious disadvantages.

We already have 450-some Congresspeople. To have multiple reps in each existing district, and have any reasonable percentage breakout, we'd have to have at least three per district, and more likely something on the order of five or more. I don't see having nearly 2500 Congresspeople as making things better.

Or we make the existing districts bigger, to allow proportionality with fewer total reps. That means that all of Illinois outside of the Chicago area would be contained in just a couple, and maybe only one massive district. That ain't gonna fly either.

What am I missing here?

[newfaceinhell]

11. That does seem to be one of the main problems with PR

As far as I can tell, any form of proportional representation will indeed force us to adopt either larger electoral districts, or a larger House of Representatives. And I think it's more of a problem in the US than it is in the many European countries that use PR, simply because of this country's size. Whereas in, say, Ireland the electoral districts elect multiple members but still cover a relatively small area (or so I believe), in the US the single-rep districts we currently have are already so large that expanding them further could lead to a serious feeling of disconnection between congressmen and the areas they represent.

One possible way of minimising the problem could be to adopt the mixed member system, whereby the current electoral districts would remain as they are, but would be topped up by say 150-200 additional members elected from party lists. These members would represent their states at large, and could act as an alternative point of contact for people unhappy with their local Congressman. And although the House would have to be increased substantially in size, it would still be smaller than the British House of Commons, for example.

[cyclezealot]

25. maybe not a problem..

maybe like three electoral districts for say Illinois..
Chicago/mid-state/down-state.. each zone elects like 8 members of COngress...proportional representation elects proportional representives for that zone..
Michigan...Detroit. Detroit suburbs/ outstate...each zone would have to be of equal population and elect proportional to the vote...each zone would have like 5 members... outstate zone would probably elect one Democrat over none...
party caucus would determine who from where, as is the case in Europe...Americans need think out of the box a little more..
the initiative process per state...It is us to us to create our own democratic system...a couple more Gore-Bush stalemates as in 2000 and Americans might be willing to think out of the box..
other needed change..If we have to keep the idiotic electoral system...Make it so, the Presidential electors reflect the percentage of state vote cast for all presidential electors..then the idiotic 'electoral college' is democratic.
state like Kansas, Nebraska without huge urban area.maybe something like the whole state would be a statewide zone.

[kevsand]

27. Three districts in Illinois

means approximately four million people in each district. How is that better?

[cyclezealot]

29. This is a work in progress..

But, of that 4 million, congress members would be subdivided by counties and selected to reflect the majority vote for this sub-region...this can be worked out....
I will research how Germany does it and get back with you later...Seems like the German parliament, the most democratic in the world - has like 400 members for its 100 million people.

[Kellanved]

40. well

I am not so sure about the "most democratic " part, but let's see.

The German lower house, the Bundestag, has at least 598 members; the current Bundestag has 601 members.

Each voter has two votes. The primary one is used for the 299 seats awarded with a "First past the post" system. I.e. there are 299 electoral districts, each of them sends one PM.

The second half of the seats is awarded by "Proportional Representation", based on the secondary vote. The important part is, that the primary vote does not change the proportions. So, were one party to win all 299 districts and 50% of the secondary vote, all remaining 299 seats would be filled with PMs from other parties. If the the proportions do not fit the vote, additional seats are added until they do (hence the current 601/603 member parliament).

While the secondary vote is deemed to be more important, only the primary one is guaranteed to be counted. The principle is called "equal weight" of both votes.
Under certain circumstances the secondary vote can be voided , most importantly the election of an independent candidate.

[newfaceinhell]

43. IIRC, doesn't the German system also place a bottom limit on the number of

votes required to gain seats under the proportional section of the ballot? I seem to remember the successor party to the old East German communist party losing most of its seats at the last election because it fell below the threshold (sorry if my memory is way off here, it woudln't be the first time). As I said in a post above, this could be a way of calming people's fears about PR opening the door to extremists- if it is indeed used in Germany I guess that was the logic behind it, as a block on any neo-nazi resurgence?

[Kellanved]

46. exactly

5% of the vote or three districts won are required to enter the Parliament as a party. Even with three districts won, a party with less than 5% of the vote is a second-class citizen of the Bundestag.

The rule is, as you have described it, intended to keep small parties outside. Stable coalitions and clear majorities would be too hard to obtain in a Parliament with too many parties.

[SoCalDem]

20. Use the Wyoming model.. It's easy

Wyoming has ONE rep, and 500K people in the whole state.. If you count their two senators, they have a representative (sen & congress)per 166K people... California has a rep (or sen) for every 690K people.. How is that "fair"..:(

Computerized records could actually make this an easy thing to accomplish.. Districts MUST be fairly balanced and equally represented..in ALL states.

[kevsand]

26. I don't see how that helps.

First of all, we're talking about just the House, not the Senate. Second, we have something like twelve million people in Illinois. Approximately one third to one half of them live in the greater Chicago area. That means we have something like 80 to 90 percent of the state geographically that is covered by only five congressional districts. That's just way too much territory to be covered by one district. Wyoming is that way because their population density is nil. I don't think this will work for Illinois.

[SoCalDem]

34. Under the Wyoming "plan", @ 1 rep per 166K, Illinois

would have 72 reps..(2 of which would be in the senate). The other 70 would be in the house.. There would be MORE from Chicago, but the other populated areas would be equally represented too, even if several communities were combined to make up the 166K..

[kevsand]

47. The Census Bureau estimates

that there are 296,118,823 people in the U.S. today. At one rep per 166k, that means 1,784 members of Congress. Is that really what we want? That seems incredibly unwieldy to me, and I'm also concerned that there might be an inevitable dilution of individual accountability.

[SoCalDem]

54. Like we have real accoountability now?

Actually a larger number would work to our advantage, because members would be harder to bribe by lobbyists,due to sheer numbers. It's a lot harder to herd 1700 cattle. than 535.:)

and...with fewer votes at stake, they would HAVE to be more attentive to their constituents..

[kevsand]

55. Yes, we do.

It's called an election (no sarcasm intended), and there is one incumbent to blame or praise. Whether voters choose to be informed participants or not is up to them. All we can do is try to make it easier for voters by removing any barriers. My guess is that juggling the records of five, or seven, or nine incumbents would make it more difficult for voters to keep track, and make it easier for incumbents to hide in the herd. I have seen this phenomenon to some extent already with local county boards and school boards that are multi-member districts.

As to whether more legislators makes it more difficult for them to be bribed, I would suggest the opposite. The multi-nationals have deep pockets, particularly when they pool their resources (as they do already). Increasing their political budgets by a factor of five is a drop in the bucket, compared to their overall advertising expenses.

On the other hand, having four or five times as many legislators to keep track of would make the job of watchdogs more difficult, not just in terms of data collection, but also in terms of meaningful communication to the voters. It's hard enough already; somebody would have to be really egregious to stand out in that crowd.

If, as you say, more is better, then why not 5,000 legislators, or 10,000? This is obviously reductio ad absurdum, but it raises the valid question of what would be the optimum size of a legislative body? I think that question merits serious study, regardless of the structure.

In thinking all of this through over the last couple of days, I've found myself moving to a desire for slightly more legislators, in order to make the districts slightly smaller, thereby bringing the single members even closer still to their constituents. Doubling their number would cut the district sizes in half. Even a fifty percent increase would reduce the size of the districts by a third.

I hadn't thought about this for a long time, and this dialog has been very helpful in that regard. Thanks.

[Telly Savalas]

57. There'd still be elections and each voter would still have...

one representative in Congress, so there's still only one incumbent to blame or praise. The only difference is that the Congressional districts would be a lot smaller. I don't think SoCalDem is making the case that more is automatically better. As you acknowledge, the issue is that the optimal size of the House is probably larger than 435 seats.

As far as the issue of money and politics goes, the smaller the constituency base is, the less money needed to run an effective campaign. While splitting up a congressional district might increase the total amount of money needed to win all the voters of the old district, it opens the door to candidates with more modest resources making a bid in one of the smaller new districts. e.g. folks can get elected to a school board without the financial backing of large corporations because they only need to get their message out to a small constituency rather than a 600,000-700,000 person Congressional district.

Of course having nice cozy districts that result in a 40,000 seat House doesn't do much good because the legislative process would become a mess. (That's aside from the issue that our current legislative chambers don't have the room to house that many people.) Nevertheless we need to do some serious thinking about boosting the number of House seats. Our population has grown greatly in the last 80 years, yet the size of Congress has remained the same.

[kevsand]

58. I thought that SoCalDem was advocating PR.

In looking back, I see that may not have been the case. If I misunderstood, my apologies. We may all be closer together on this than I realized.

[Radical Activist]

12. Congressman should be tied to a specific geographic district

that they live in. That's the problem with PR.

[cyclezealot]

28. don't think so..

earlier reply...party caucus would reflect actual vote totals..we need bring - oh my god...lawyers into this deliberative process...in creating our own new system... in Germany,party caucus selects according to actual pr vote totals...need find out how they do it...!
lets say we had electoral zones..Democrat got 25%so they are awarded one congress member... well, the Democratic areas of that 'zone' would get the Democratic member....this is workable.
I would like a situation where I could write my chosen member of congress..as of now, my member is so screwed up, I have no representation at all....a waste of my postage/phone call...

[Radical Activist]

37. A lot of the work

a member of Congress does is associated with issues specific to that district. I think its better to elect them from specific geographic areas, instead of assigning people to represent areas they don't live in, which is what I believe Britain does.

This is one of the reasons the American colonies rebelled against Britain. They didn't feel their interests could be represented in parliament by someone who lived in England and wasn't from the colonies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. There is no requirement that they live in their district

They only have to be a resident of the state. Congressman Brady from PA does not (or at least he didn't when he was first elected) live in his district.

[Radical Activist]

36. Most people expect a their representative to live in the district

even though it isn't required, and they are right to expect it. A member of Congress should represent the interests of the people in that district, not just represent their personal ideological viewpoint.

[kevsand]

48. Don't know about PA,

but in Illinois you have to live in your district, and we like it that way. The only exception is at the time of redistricting: if the districts change, you can run in your new district or your old one, but if elected in a new district, you must establish residency there within an established time limit thereafter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. States cannot require representatives to live in particular districts

The courts have held that states cannot add qualifications other than those enumerated in the constitution.

[kevsand]

59. So you are saying that

a congressman from Chicago could represent my district, even though there are a couple of hundred miles, four or five other districts, and a universe separating us? That's absurd on the face of it. How come no one's ever done it?

[yurbud]

13. Would anything stop states from doing this now to avoid redistrict fights?

This would be good for conservative voters too.

Right now, if you are a rightie in very liberal area, your vote for a congressperson is essentially wasted. Same thing for a lefty anywhere you can smell cows.

You could even use it to cut out the deadwood in the party. Have people vote for the party first, then rank candidates within. So the bottom (weakest) candidates get knocked off by other party.


In terms of campaigning, it could still be about the same. You campaign where you know people and the issues to get as many votes as can there, and then secondarily go to other sympathetic areas.

In a big state like CA, you could divide it into a couple of big zones so candidates wouldn't have to run around the whole state.

[yurbud]

14. RIDDLE: What states never have US Congress redistricting fights

even under current rules?

[newfaceinhell]

16. I'm thinking single-district states like Wyoming

I think you make a very good point about how PR could put an end to redistricting problems.

[yurbud]

17. it would be a good counter proposal to Arnold here

[wuushew]

15. I support IRV for congressional seats, PV for the Electoral College

eliminating swing states would do much to improve Presidental elections.

[yurbud]

18. PV for electoral only if ALL states do it.

[wuushew]

19. A Constitutional amendment would only need 3/4 of the states

There were less than a dozen truly swing states in the 2004. Since the small red and blue states stand to neither gain nor loose in such a system I think there is a good chance of passing such an amendment.

[cyclezealot]

22. not true...electoral systems is a state matter.

No constitutional amendment required... the constitution says states regulate their elections, except as to matters of discrimination..all that, in spite of Gore/Bush decision 2000...meaning the Supreme Court appointed Dubya..
some states do not go along with even the 'winner take all concept..' Maine allows congressional districts to choose their presidential electors...Colorado had a vote on this same concept last year... pr only requires state action..
of course, I would not mind a national call for pr due to a national mandate to do such in the U.S. constituion making it required everywhere...

[Darranar]

24. I support PR for the Senate, not the House...

The Senate is highly undemocratic as it is, the House is not.

[cyclezealot]

30. winner take all

when the vote does not reflect popular opinion..this is not democratic...as Common Cause says...We do not have a constituency seeking out a congressmember...we have a congress- member seeking out a predetermined congressional district. We call it gerrymandering.

[Darranar]

31. I was comparing it to the Senate, not to the ideal...

For the House, my preference would probably be single transferable vote by state, with the larger states dividing themselves up into a number of districts.

[carpetbagger]

39. You'd need a new Constitution

That's the one thing the Constitution explicitly exempts from amending. From Article V...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Darranar]

50. "without its consent"...

Naturally, we probably won't see the small states consenting, but in theory it wouldn't require a new Constitution.

And frankly a new Constitution isn't such a bad idea.

[many a good man]

32. Its not a coincidence

new democracies never adopt the kooky US model of govt. There's been a lot of social science research that has gone into some of the European electoral models of parliamentary govt. Imagine no gerrymandering. I'm all for anything that will lead this country to state-of-the-art electoral reform.

Wouldn't it be cool if we were in the vanguard of implementing the best electoral system humanly possible based on science and reason instead of suffering with a decaying ineffective system built on a stubborn anachronism?

[alarimer]

35. I oppose it

For the simple reason that Congressional seats are supposed to represent local interests. If the district wants to elect a Libertarian or a Communist that is their right. It should not matter how well the parties do elsewhere.

[queeg]

38. How bout we all move to Sugarland Texas

and just vote for whoever runs against DeLay.?

[alarimer]

49. A good plan

I wish I could vote against him.

[aneerkoinos]

41. Start from local

Long way to make Congress proportianally representative. Easier to start from making State (and lower) representative organs proportional. And parliamentary if you like, instead of presidential with Ahnold style Cybernators.

[newfaceinhell]

45. Indeed- Federal election reform is a very long term goal

And of course, if we bring about change at the local level, it will help people to make their decision on how to proceed on the national level; they can get a feel for how PR works, and decide whether it serves them better as a system. If people were happy with PR at a local level, they would hopefully begin to demand it at the national level too.

By the way, am i right in thinking you are the Finnish DUer I mentioned in my original post? If so, thanks and sorry i couldn't remember your username when I wrote it.

[aneerkoinos]

52. Yup

Talked about the open list system in the UK-group.

One word of caution about PR generally. IMO 10 seats per district, which puts the bar at 10% of votes for a list to get candidate elected, is the minumum number. Turkey has official bar of 10% of vote (I'm not familiar with other details of their system), which meant in last election that most other traditional parties got 5-9 of vote and don't have representation in the parliament, while one party got about 40% and about two thirds of the seats.

C. 20 seats per district, which would mean bar of 5% (official bar in Germany and Sweden), is much better compromise, it maintains the proportional nature of the system (hard to imagine 20 parties each getting 4% of votes), but avoids too fractured party-map a là Israel.

[rfkrfk]

44. PR, could be done by states, now, for their US House representatives

What are progressive states waiting for ? , the
people who --> want <-- this, should go first.

[aneerkoinos]

53. So of to work!

Get organized (talk to Greens and Libertarians, you'll find allies ;)), see if you can agree on the PR system you wan't to put forward (I recommend open list with 20-seat districts), choose a state (any ideas?) and get enough signatories to put it on ballot. Then win the ballot!

Easy! ;)