It doesn’t look like it will do much for larger states which currently do pretty well in mixed representation. The smaller states won’t be able to apportion without at least three represenatives (unless you get a tie, then you could do it in two). The numbers would change from what they are now, but probably no great swing to one side or another. Massachusetts is a notable exception iwth ten Representatives, all Democrats. Proportional representation would give them some Republicans.
Yes, why not?
It doesn’t. See Nader Trader.
“What kind of music do you usually have here?”
“Oh, we got both kinds. We got Country and Western.”
Maybe I’m missing something. How do you decide whose votes get transferred?
For example, let’s say Allen, Baker, and Carter are running and there are two seats available. And let’s say that everyone picks Allen as their first choice but half of the voters pick Baker as their second choice and half pick Carter.
Now I’m counting the ballots. What keeps me from counting all the Allen/Baker ballots first and then declaring Allen won the first seat? And then counting the Allen/Carter ballots and by eliminating the already elected Allen, awarding all these votes to Carter?
You can transfer all of them and weight them accordingly. For example, if Bob gets 5000 votes and is elected with 4500, then all of his ballots’ second choices are transferred at the value of 10% of a vote. (I think some systems use random selection, though.)
Let’s say you’re Green Party, but you know that if you voted Green Party, your vote would be wasted, since the Green Party candidate doesn’t stand a chance of getting elected. Of the electable candidates, Obama is closest to your views, so you would vote for Obama. Your state is a “swing state”; meaning the vote in your state could go either way. In your case it would behoove you to vote for Obama.
In my state, Obama has it 100% sewn up, no questions asked. So via the internet, you and I make a deal: I vote Green, since it doesn’t make any difference, and you vote Obama. The Green Party candidate gets a vote, and the vote you cast makes a difference. Win.
Except it doesn’t work, as another poster pointed out, and (more importantly), I’d be willing to be money that it falls under the definition of election fraud.
Name one non-Democrat or non-Republican in Federal office from a large state.
Calfornia has 53 Representatives yet not one Green, Libertarian, Communist, American Independent etc.
Colorado has 7 seats and is about 40% Democrat, 30% Republican and 30% Other/Independent/Undeclared so we should have around 2 third party representatives. Where are they?
Why do you think these 3rd parties would garner enough votes to elect a representative? I could see a Green Party candidate making it in CA maybe, but it doesn’t change the realities of elections. Candidates with 3rd party affiliations run under a major party now to increase their chances of getting elected, and still will. Voters will still vote along the major party divisions. Other/Independent/Undeclared doesn’t automatically translate into 3rd party support.
Then why did you imply that there are larger states that currently do well with mixed representation? Or is your definition of mixed representation a state that has both Democrat and Republican legislators because I thought you meant mixed as more than the two parties?
In my first post I meant mixed in terms of Democrats and Republicans. But I am also doubtful that any practical system will pick up more than a few 3rd party reps in the large states. It would break the situation in MA, but in skimming the HoR site, I didn’t find another state with more than 4 seats which had locked out another party.
Ok, that makes more sense than how I read it. But even if it is only a few 3rd party, it’s better than what we have now.
I agree in principle. I’m not sure how it would work out in practice. Also, I was only considering the simplest systems. Given enough votes for each voter and the ability to vote party instead of candidate I guess there could be a more significant effect. But in scanning through the current set of reps by state, I was a little pleased to see the existence of diversity, even in some of the smaller states. MA highlights the problem though. Even though the state has a strong Democratic voter base, certainly at least 10% of the voters (I’m sure much more) would support Republican repsresentation. I may not like Republicans, but their misguided politics deserve equitable representation in the government.
I don’t know. (And it certainly doesn’t help that I was confusing STV with party list voting.) A Google search didn’t produce a handy guide. It seems there are various methods but I can’t describe them to you. I’m not great with math. I could give you some historical perspective on the political controversies over Jefferson’s method of apportionment but that doesn’t help with the numbers.
This analysis seems to be based on the current political reality that there are only two major parties. Just because people steadily vote Democratic or Republican now doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote differently if there were more viable options. The entire thread is based on the understanding that the possibility of winning representation with less than a plurality (and without the Spoiler Effect) there would be more significant parties.