America: NOW are you ready for proportional representation?

[erislover]

@Martin_Hyde

Hogwash, most major Democratic initiatives are anathema to individualism.

I’d be interested in a few examples.

[Martin_Hyde]

Before getting into the specific examples, this is from the Preamble to the 2008 Democratic Party Platform, the platform now-President Obama campaigned on:

For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure.

After that, take a gander at their stance on Social Security reform, tax policy, health care, labor regulations, environmental regulations, safety regulations, vehicle regulations, and I’m sure I could type up a list 200 items long if I felt like taking the time.

[Malden_Capell]

@Freddy_the_Pig

This is completely false. All of the large presidential democracies (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Nigeria) have more than two viable political parties.

I suppose that will teach me to mouth off on a busy Wednesday afternoon after a heavy lunch although from what I understand of politics in such countries as these is that the multiple parties in fact work fairly securely within large coalitions which are roughly comparable to the caucuses of the ‘big tent’ parties in the US.

I’ll happily be corrected, however.

[BrainGlutton]

I expect the UK will move to PR – or, at least, submit the matter to a referendum (like Tony Blair promised . . . in 1997 . . .) – before the U.S. does, just because (1) there has been an active PR movement there longer and (2) they have a third party, the LibDems, that falls just short of being a major party and PR is the Holy Grail to them.

And, when that happens in the UK, then the PR movement will begin to start to prepare to take off in America – just because the American media will, for the first time, have to explain to the American people what PR is. Most have never heard of it. Politicians I have asked have never heard of it; one thought by “proportional representation” I meant minority-majority districting. (Racial gerrymandering becomes a non-problem under PR, BTW; blacks can effectively pool their votes behind a black candidate, or not, according to their individual preferences, no special districting necessary, and regardless of whether they happen to live in a black-majority neighborhood or not.)

[Malden_Capell]

@BrainGlutton

I expect the UK will move to PR – or, at least, submit the matter to a referendum (like Tony Blair promised . . . in 1997 . . .) – before the U.S. does, just because (1) there has been an active PR movement there longer and (2) they have a third party, the LibDems, that falls just short of being a major party and PR is the Holy Grail to them.

It might happen eventually but probably not for a generation, as the LDs lost a referendum on AV early in 2011. It’s put the issue in the long grass for now.

[Little_Nemo]

@BrainGlutton

“We can’t win elections because people like us aren’t allowed to vote. So the system should be changed so we can vote.” Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Are you claiming Greens aren’t allowed to vote? Or are you trying to make a historical analogy about black and women voters? If the latter, it’s a poor analogy - not being able to vote is a serious issue. Not winning an election is just something that happens in a democracy.

@BrainGlutton

There’s nothing wrong with changing the definition of “winning elections” so long as the change brings the result nearer in line with the public will, all of it including that of ideological minorities. Now, if we had PR, and the 10 or so Greens in Congress demanded the floor-vote rules be changed so they can pass Green bills even when a majority of the House opposes them, you might have a point.

The thing is I feel the current system is pretty much in line with the public will. Third party candidates don’t win elections because their platforms don’t have public support. If their platforms start getting any significant interest, they get picked up by one or both of the big parties.

[Ximenean]

@BrainGlutton

I expect the UK will move to PR – or, at least, submit the matter to a referendum (like Tony Blair promised . . . in 1997 . . .) – before the U.S. does, just because (1) there has been an active PR movement there longer and (2) they have a third party, the LibDems, that falls just short of being a major party and PR is the Holy Grail to them.

And, when that happens in the UK, then the PR movement will begin to start to prepare to take off in America – just because the American media will, for the first time, have to explain to the American people what PR is. Most have never heard of it. Politicians I have asked have never heard of it; one thought by “proportional representation” I meant minority-majority districting. (Racial gerrymandering becomes a non-problem under PR, BTW; blacks can effectively pool their votes behind a black candidate, or not, according to their individual preferences, no special districting necessary, and regardless of whether they happen to live in a black-majority neighborhood or not.)

I am puzzled as to why you think some change in the UK electoral system would affect that of the USA. The two countries have followed very different systems for that last 250 years. Anyway, Britain is not about to adopt PR. We tried a vote on an alternative called AV, which was defeated and killed the idea for the next thirty years.

[2sense]

Surprising no one, I’m ready for proportional representation.

Party loyalty isn’t entirely at odds with FPTP elections. It’s a function of how important the party is in reelecting politicians. If we assigned federal matching funds to parties instead of to candidates, there would be more party loyalty in the US. If did away with public primaries and had political parties to pick their own candidates there would be more party loyalty in the US. It’s just that the party tends to be more important in proportional or party list elections.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Malden_Capell

although from what I understand of politics in such countries as these is that the multiple parties in fact work fairly securely within large coalitions which are roughly comparable to the caucuses of the ‘big tent’ parties in the US.

Parties in many-party systems do form coalitions, of course, both within the legislature and to contest presidential elections. But even at the coalition level, two-coalition domination in other presidential democracies seldom approaches two-party domination in the United States.

Consider the % cast for candidates other than the top two finishers in recent presidential elections:

Mexico, 29%
Brazil, 20%
Argentina, 32%
South Korea, 25%
Nigeria, 11% (would be more but for ruling party fraud)
United States, 1.4%

The Republic of China is the exception that proves the rule–there, the independence issue so polarizes the electorate that two and only two coalitions contest the presidential election.

Clearly, nothing about a presidency drives a country inexorably toward a two-party system. Nor does FPTP (FPTP countries tend to have fewer parties than PR countries, but more than two). The unique feature which drives the two-party system in the US is nomination by state-run direct primary.

[erislover]

@Martin_Hyde

Before getting into the specific examples, this is from the Preamble to the 2008 Democratic Party Platform, the platform now-President Obama campaigned on…

After that, take a gander at their stance on Social Security reform, tax policy, health care, labor regulations, environmental regulations, safety regulations, vehicle regulations, and I’m sure I could type up a list 200 items long if I felt like taking the time.

I guess I just don’t see “individualism” the way you do, because I don’t see what any of those have to do with it.

[Lord_Feldon]

@BrainGlutton

And, when that happens in the UK, then the PR movement will begin to start to prepare to take off in America – just because the American media will, for the first time, have to explain to the American people what PR is.

I think you’re really overestimating the degree to which the US media covers foreign elections at all, let alone the minutiae of the electoral process.

[Ludovic]

I wouldn’t mind the Senate being PR, but still being a deliberative body with 6 year terms. That way swinging party politics wouldn’t cause huge changes in policy, and you could still have a local Representative. Small population states would be able to vote for the single-issue Agrarian Party if they want to keep their farm and infrastructure subsidies.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

I wouldn’t mind the Senate being PR, but still being a deliberative body with 6 year terms. That way swinging party politics wouldn’t cause huge changes in policy, and you could still have a local Representative. Small population states would be able to vote for the single-issue Agrarian Party if they want to keep their farm and infrastructure subsidies.

What, you mean, we leave the House elected by single-member-districts as it is now; and, WRT the Senate, we sever all its connections to states or localities, and every two years we put up one-third of the Senate seats for election by national party-list PR (the form of PR they have in Israel)? Interesting idea.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lord_Feldon

I think you’re really overestimating the degree to which the US media covers foreign elections at all, let alone the minutiae of the electoral process.

I’m not. I know American media completely ignored it when NZ changed to PR. But they could not ignore a PR referendum in the UK.

[Lord_Feldon]

@BrainGlutton

I’m not. I know American media completely ignored it when NZ changed to PR. But they could not ignore a PR referendum in the UK.

How silly of me. It will be impossible to stop the media from talking about it. Process stories are what they live for, especially when they involve foreign electoral systems. I had to ask for an extra trash pickup when the Columbus Dispatch put out that series of special sections about the MMP referendum in Ontario.

:rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@Lord_Feldon

How silly of me. It will be impossible to stop the media from talking about it. Process stories are what they live for, especially when they involve foreign electoral systems. I had to ask for an extra trash pickup when the Columbus Dispatch put out that series of special sections about the MMP referendum in Ontario.

:rolleyes:

That’s different. The UK exists. That is, Americans seem to pay a lot more attention to the UK, than they pay to the urban legend about this preposterous English/French speaking (the idea!) country to the north (or in some versions to the east) of the U.S., where the people supposedly put maple syrup on things otherwise edible (in their darker, nihilistic moods they even put something called “cheese curds” on fries), and they do everything just like Americans only just a little different (football fields 110 yards long, cigarettes sold 25 to a pack, multi-colored paper money, “bacon” means ham), and their national police wear some kind of over-the-top gay-bondage rig with a red coat and weird leather belts. It’s all nonsense, of course, you’d have better luck finding Atlantis!