Not sure if I’m sold on it but you raise some good points. Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out for me.
Oh suuuure brainGlutton. Start this thread the day I go on vacation. Just got through reading and am too tired to post now. Suffice it to say that I shall soon tear your arguments to shreds! Can’t have Great Debates turning into a love fest of people agreeing with each other.
Bring it AAAHHWWWN, Daddy-O!
/me hums “Oh Canada”.
So exactly would members of Congress get selected under this system? I assume if there is a 49% vote for Republicans than 49% of representatives will belong to that party. But how are those party members selected and who selects them?
Well, let’s try not to get sidetracked. We’ve already had several threads (see OP) on proportional-representation systems and how they work; this thread is about something else, the desirability (or undesirability) of a multiparty political system which PR, and other reforms, make possible.
Several PR systems are explained at this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
And you can also find some explanations here: http://www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html
Ohhh, BoringDad! Where AAARRRRE yooouuu?
I’m a big fan of multiparty democracy.
It might be sellable in the US as a method of curbing Gerrymandering. For example, a state like California could be divided into 3-4 regions, each of which elects its Reps via proportional representation (approval voting with a super-proportional patch thrown in is my favorite variant). The beauty of this is that PR advocates only need to win in 1 of the 50 states: they don’t have to call a constitutional convention.
Here, I should add a qualification. The purpose of a democratic government is not to create a facimile of the public: it is to create framework for reasoned deliberation/debate (which you described quite well) which remains responsive to the needs or desires of the public.
For example, although a certain share of the public may be stupid, smelly or -I don’t know- short, there’s no reason why those characteristics -or any other characteristic- should be represented proportionally in Congress. This POV is reflected in the founding father’s distaste for “factions” and their concern for the rights of the minority.
Justifications for Prop. Rep based on “Will of the people” or “Representativeness” are inherantly problematic. (Though I admit I might tolerate all sorts of discourse which pushes this particular plank of the M4M agenda. 
)
I agree . . . if we wanted a Congress that was truly a “minature portrait” of the people, the way to do it would be to hold a national lottery every two years and pick 535 registered voters at random. (I think this was actually proposed once – seriously or not, I don’t know – in the pages of the National Review.) If 50% of the voters were women, it would be statistically certain that more or less 50% of the members of Congress would be women, and the same would apply with respect to representation of ethnic and religious groups, social classes and income levels. But if we did that we would not have a Congress, we would have a focus group. Its members would be so inexperienced in government that they would be unfit to do anything but vote up-or-down on policy proposals from the executive. Government is a complicated business and requires the attention of specialists. Unlike some “populists,” I have no problem in principle with the existence of specialized occupational categories of career politicians, policy analysts, and civil servants. And an effective legislature should be composed, for the most part, of highly educated professionals – even if that means they will be drawn disproportionately from the upper and upper-middle classes.
But the point remains: A truly democratic legislature should, at least, represent the whole range of political views and values found in the electorate, and in roughly the same proportions. The best way to achieve that is to craft a system which facilitates the emergence of multiple, ideologically homogenous, political parties – each headed by its own group of specialist politicians, who are positioned to work out the practical policy applications of those beliefs and values which, to the party’s mass base, are essentially gut feelings and nebulous attitudes.
I’m a big advocate of multi-party politics. Or I was, until I read this. I want alternatives! I want reform! But this, if true, would make American politics even more stable than it already is! Bad bad Bad! No wonder the serious & pragmatic ideologue works through the two-party system.
OK, you’ve convinced me. Screw the Green Party, I’m all about subverting the Democrats.
You can get “alternatives” and “reform” through the negotiations between the several parties represented in the legislature, foolsguinea. The important thing is that a multiparty system makes it possible for a much wider range of ideas to be brought to the table seriously discussed and considered. It is not essential for “reform” that every election should produce a legislature whose party composition is radically different than the one that preceded it. In the early years after adopting PR, we would indeed see major changes, as the smaller parties gained a foothold in Congress and the state legislatures and then gradually grew and grew, shaving off some of the Republicrats’ supporters, and mobilizing new and previously indifferent or disaffected voters. But eventually – within a decade, would be my guess – each party would have achieved complete market saturation, recruited all the voter bases it could hope to recruit, and after that things would settle down and stay settled. Settked, that is, with respect to the relative strengths of the parties in the legislatures, but only with respect to that. The parties would be free to continually come up with new ideas and try new strategies for getting their way. It would be a wild and merry tussle. Quite unlike what we’ve got now.
Well, BoringDad appears to have wussed out and slunk away, so I will proceed with my next reason why a multiparty system is preferable to a two-party system. I’ve been holding back on this one because I know it’s going to raise some hackles, but what the hell. 
8. A multiparty system can provide a healthy safety valve for nastiness and ugliness.
In the OP I asserted that each party in a multiparty system could play a constructive role. I must admit I have reservations on that point. For instance, in my view the members of a religious conservative party like the Constitution Party are fundamentally wrong about practically everything that matters to them and have nothing whatsoever of value to contribute to the political process. But I see no other reason to exclude them: The CP’s supporters, and those with similar views who are working within the Republican Party at present, are people, they are American citizens, and they have as much right as anybody else to have their views and values represented in the legislatures.
Then there are . . . others. Hate groups. The Southern Party, the Southern Independence Party, the Knights Party (political arm of the Klan), the American Nazi Party – I won’t link to these because of the boards policy against linking to hate sites, but you can read about them at the Political Parties page of politics1.com – http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm. The right-wing militia groups that produced Timothy McVeigh. The “common-law courts” movement of idiots who think they can individually secede from American society. The “Christian Identity” churches who believe nonwhites are soulless animals and Jews are literally descendants of Satan. Also, black nationalist groups – whose views often look just like white racism stood on its head. You can get a good guide to all of them from the Southern Poverty Law Center – http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp – and from the Anti-Defamation League – http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/. Do we want to run the risk that if we changed our electoral systems, these people would pool their votes and actually get a couple of members elected to Congress, or to some state legislatures? In Britain, where PR is an actual issue right now, some people oppose it because they don’t want to risk the racist National Party winning any seats in Parliament.
Now, it is possible to construct a PR system in such a way that very small parties can’t get into government at all. In Germany, a party needs at least 5% voter support to get into parliament; this bar has frozen out neo-Nazi organizations while sometimes letting in the Greens, sometimes keeping them out.
But suppose it happens anyway?
My answer is, it wouldn’t necessarily be all that bad, and it might serve a useful function. The idea of my tax dollars going to pay for the salary and staff of Congressman David Duke does make my gorge rise. But he’s only one vote. I don’t believe pure-d racial hatred has broad enough support in America any more to support a very large political party. There’s still a lot of racism, yes – but it’s one thing to unthinkingly accept ethnic stereotypes or to feel a certain esthetic or social distate for certain ethnic groups; it’s quite another thing to base your entire world-view and politics on ideas of racial identity, and I believe the latter way of thinking is extremely rare in today’s America.
Furthermore, the chances of such a party producing an American Hitler are nil – for several reasons, one of which is that fascism is all about an all-powerful, centralized, national state; but, for historical reasons, the sectors of American society that are the most racist are also the most decentralist and the most hostile to strong national government. Also, if white supremacists can get into Congress, black separatists might also get in – David Duke and Louis Farrakhan will balance each other out, and watching them debate each other will be some real hoo-boy fun! (See point no. 7.)
Most importantly, David Duke in Congress might provide something genuinely useful: A safety valve for the political expression of certain feelings that, unfortunately, do live in many Americans who feel muzzled and voiceless in our current political environment. We have reached a point where nobody who hopes to have a political career will dare to express racist views openly – remember what happened to Trent Lott when he obliquely praised the views of Strom Thurmond? My thinking is, if Timothy McVeigh had been able to look to Congress and see David Duke, or somebody like him, spouting his message of racial hatred and fear at public expense, then maybe, just maybe, he might not have felt so frustrated that he had to make a political statement through mass murder.
I think it’s healthier in general to create an environment where people who hold racist or otherwide extreme views can air them openly rather than festering in silence. Sometimes the best way to treat an abscess is to lance it and let the pus out and expose the infected flesh to light and air.
Which leads right into
A multiparty system produces more coherent and meaningful messages than a two-party system.
Campaign rhetoric nowadays tends to be, well, vague. Sometimes you can hear a politician give a speech beginning to end without learning anything about his or her politics. Political ads are as imagistic and meaningless as the consultants can make them. I think one reason for all this is that, in a two-party system, a politician can succeed only by winning support of a voting majority. If you want to get elected to Congress, you don’t dare say anything which might alienate 50%+1 of the voters in your district, even if it’s something you think urgently needs to be said. You make your messages innocuous and ambiguous enough to have appeal to as broad a swath of the electorate as possible, and always make the swing voters in the middle your principal target zone.
In a multiparty system-- based, let us say, on the multi-member-district form of PR, which each district electing a ten-member delegation – you don’t need a majority’s support to win – only a substantial minority. This frees you up to say what you really think. If you’re a Green in your sentiments you can campaign as a Green and talk the Green line. Same if you’re a Libertarian, etc. It doesn’t matter who else you make made, just as long as you can win the votes of the necessary 10% of the votes.
As a voter, wouldn’t you rather listen to campaign ads and speeches that really say something? Even if a lot of them make your blood boil?
Yes, actually. And this is the real reason I want a different political system. I get wistful when I see the fistfights on the floor of Taiwan Parliament. I wish for honest passion, not cold politesse. I should maybe move to a country with a more boisterous political culture, 'cos I’m getting jackwhere here.
I feel the same way when I watch clips from sessions of the British Parliament. No fistfights, but lots of cheers and jeers and catcalls. That’s how it should be in Congress!
Good read.
However nice this seems, wouldn’t it arguably worsen the constipation we see out of DC?
Too many cooks…
Welcome to the Straight Dope, yo no se. I’m glad you enjoyed this discussion, but we generally prefer that ancient threads not be re-opened. (Too often someone will feel an urgent need to respond to a particular post, only to discover that the person no longer participates in the SDMB.)
I’m closing this thread. If you feel a need to re-open the discussion, you are welcome to initiate your own thread (with appropriate arguments) and link to this one as a reference.
[ /Moderator Mode ]