# Thought experiment: What if U.S. government represented the will of the people (more precisely)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391 "2011-09-06T14:48:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/1 "2011-09-06T14:48:04Z")
“[legislatures in the United States] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” – John Adams “… the portrait is excellent in proportion to its being a good likeness,…the legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society… the faithful echo of the voices of the people.” – James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention “The Electors [voters] who are on a different side in party politics from the local majority are unrepresented… [This system] is diametrically opposed to the first principle of democracy, representation in proportion to numbers.” – John Stuart Mill, in Considerations on Representative Government (1861) I have occassionally argued here that [a multiparty system is better for America than a two-party system.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516797) One reason is that it produces a legislature/government that is nearer to a “miniature portrait” of the people than a distorting funhouse mirror like we’ve got now. But, what if we the people actually were governed by a “miniature portrait” of our collective self? Here’s the full-sized portrait: The 2011 version of the [Pew Political Typology,](http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/) which divides the American people, according to their political views/behavior, into nine categories: > [@](#): > > **Staunch Conservatives** > 9% OF ADULT POPULATION /11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** This extremely partisan Republican group is strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are highly engaged in politics, most (72%) agree with the Tea Party, 54% regularly watch Fox News, and nearly half (47%) believe that President Obama was born outside the U.S. > **Defining values:** Extremely critical of the federal government and supportive of sharply limited government. Pro-business and strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace. Highly religious; most say homosexuality should be discouraged by society. > > \ > > **Main Street Republicans** > 11% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** Concentrated in the South and Midwest. Main Street Republicans differ from Staunch Conservatives in the degree of their conservatism and in their skepticism about business. They are socially and fiscally conservative but supportive of government efforts to protect the environment. > **Defining values:** Highly critical of government. Very religious and strongly committed to traditional social values. Generally negative about immigrants and mostly opposed to social welfare programs. But much less enamored of business than Staunch Conservatives, and less supportive of an assertive foreign policy. > > \ > > **Libertarians** > 9% OF ADULT POPULATION /10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** This Republican-oriented, predominantly male group mostly conforms to the classic profile of the libertarian in its combination of strong economic conservatism and relatively liberal views on social issues. Much less religious than other GOP-oriented groups, Libertarians are relatively comfortable financially– nearly half (46%) say they are professional or business class, among the highest of the typology groups. > **Defining values:** Highly critical of government. Disapprove of social welfare programs. Pro-business and strongly opposed to regulation. Accepting of homosexuality. Moderate views about immigrants compared with other Republican-oriented groups. > > \ > > **Disaffecteds** > 11% OF ADULT POPULATION /11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** The most financially stressed of the eight typology groups, Disaffecteds are very critical of both business and government. They are sympathetic to the poor and supportive of social welfare programs. Most are skeptical about immigrants and doubtful that the U.S. can solve its current problems. They are pessimistic about their own financial future. > **Defining values:** A majority believe that the government is wasteful and inefficient and that regulation does more harm than good. But nearly all say too much power is concentrated in a few companies. Religious and socially conservative. > > \ > > **Post-Moderns** > 13% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** Well-educated and financially comfortable. Post-Moderns are supportive of many aspects of government though they take conservative positions on questions about racial policy and the social safety net. Very liberal on social issues. Post-Moderns were strong supporters of Barack Obama in 2008, but turned out at far lower rates in 2010. > **Defining values:** Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection. Favor the use of diplomacy rather than military force to ensure peace. Generally positive about immigrants and their contributions to society. > > \ > > **New Coalition Democrats** > 10% OF ADULT POPULATION /9% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** This majority-minority group is highly religious and financially stressed. They are generally upbeat about both the country’s ability to solve problems and an individual’s ability to get ahead through hard work. > **Defining values:** Generally supportive of government, but divided over expanding the social safety net. Reflecting their own diverse makeup, they are pro-immigrant. Socially conservative, about as many say homosexuality should be discouraged as say it should be accepted. > > \ > > **Hard-Pressed Democrats** > 13% OF ADULT POPULATION /15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** This largely blue-collar Democratic group is struggling financially and is generally cynical about government. Nearly half (47%) expect that they will not earn enough to lead the kind of life they want. Socially conservative and very religious. > **Defining values:** Critical of both business and government. View immigrants as an economic burden and a cultural threat. Supportive of environmental protection in general but concerned about the economic impact of environmental laws and regulations. > > \ > > **Solid Liberals** > 14% OF ADULT POPULATION /16% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** Politically engaged, Solid Liberals are strongly pro-government and hold liberal positions across the full range of political issues. They are one of the most secular groups. Two-thirds (67%) say they disagree with the Tea Party. > **Defining values:** Very supportive of regulation, environmental protection and government assistance to the poor. Socially tolerant, supportive of the growing racial and ethnic diversity of the country. A majority (59%) say that religion is not that important to them. > > \ > > **Bystanders** > 10% OF ADULT POPULATION /0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > **Basic Description:** Defined by their disengagement from the political process, either by choice or because they are ineligible to vote. They are highly unlikely to vote (61% say they seldom vote, and 39% volunteer that they never vote; none are currently registered to vote). Most follow government and public affairs only now and then (42%) or hardly at all (23%). > **Who they are:** Bystanders are overwhelmingly young (51% are under 30) and nearly half are Latino (38%) or black (9%). A third (33%) are first- or second-generation Americans. They are diverse in their political views though they lean Democratic, and their values more often align with the Democratic than the Republican groups. They also have much more favorable attitudes about the Democratic Party and its political figures than about the Republican Party. More than half (54%) have incomes under $30,000 annually. Nearly two-thirds (64%) report that they or someone in their household were unemployed in the past year; 72% have only a high school education or less. These are the people, politically – that is, if you were to take a completely random sample of 1,000 Americans, their political views would break down more or less as above. It’s inclusive – there are Communists and Socialists in America, but they don’t show here, they would be merely subsets of the Solid Liberals; doctrinaire Objectivists and the radical faction of the LP would be subsets of Libertarians; hardcore White Nationalists and fascists would be subsets of the Staunch Conservatives, and so on. Now, this is a thought experiment with grossly simplified assumptions, like a high-school physics problem where you assume frictionless gears. Assume: 1. America adopts a pure party-list [proportional representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) system for electing all multi-member policymaking bodies from Congress to your school board. 2. Each of the typology groups listed above, except for the Bystanders (a wild card, their votes up for grabs to anyone who can motivate them), forms exactly one political party (yes, I know “The Disaffected Party” is a dumb name, bear with me, it’s just a thought experiment) which appeals to all and only those voters in that typology group. 3. In the next election, each party gets 100% turnout and support from its present base of registered voters, so the resulting eight-party Congress is 11% Staunch Conservative, 10% Libertarian, and so on – exact same result as if Congress were filled by a lottery, except these members are still career statescritters, not random shlubs. (Whether Congress **should** be filled by lottery, like jury duty, is a different debate.) 4. For electing single-member offices like the presidency, the U.S. also adopts [electoral fusion,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion) which allows two or more parties to join forces behind one candidate, and [instant-runoff voting,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) which eliminates the “spoiler” problem of multi-candidate elections and assures that the ultimate winner will have a majority mandate by a broad definition of such. Thus, the winning president might be the coalition candidate of all the leftists, or all the rightists, or all the centrists broadly defined. No majority party in Congress – every committee would have to include members from each of the eight parties. As at present, nothing gets done unless you can marshal a majority of votes behind it. What kinds of public policies would such a political system likely produce? How would it differ from what we’ve got now? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/2 "2011-09-07T21:34:19Z")
Nobody has any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/3 "2011-09-07T21:42:29Z")
Sorry, I’m Bystanding. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/4 "2011-09-07T22:57:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sorry, I’m Bystanding. :dubious: Here. Your court appearance is next Thursday at 7:30 a.m. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/5 "2011-09-08T01:19:17Z")
We probably see the parties break up into the following: -An ultraconservative Tea Party group -A socially liberal, fiscally conservative, “Country Club Republican” party -A populist party that is economically protectionist and socially conservative -A much-strengthened and enlargened Libertarian Party -A moderately liberal party resembling somewhat the Democrats -A progressive party that is much to the left of the current Democrats I see in general a coalition between 2, 4, and 5 (a “centre” coalition); 1, 2, and 3 or 4 (a “conservative” coalition) ; 3 or 4, 5, and 6 (a “liberal” coalition). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/6 "2011-09-08T01:30:01Z")
Sure, an endless cycle of shaky coalitions forming and dissolving… just like Italy! Mamma-mia! ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/7 "2011-09-08T01:31:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, an endless cycle of shaky coalitions forming and dissolving… just like Italy! Mamma-mia! Germany isn’t particularly unstable however. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/8 "2011-09-08T02:14:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, an endless cycle of shaky coalitions forming and dissolving… just like Italy! Mamma-mia! Well, we still would have a presidential/separation-of-powers system, not a parliamentary system with its problems of “forming a government.” “Coalitions” in Congress would be issue-specific: one alignment of parties would form around a tax bill and a different alignment around an immigration bill or a drug bill. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/9 "2011-09-08T02:40:07Z")
I think you’d find the groups formed coalitions that largely mirror what we have today and you’d be left, again, with two sides. Just because someone has an ® or (D) next to their name means they are all of the same mindset with their party. In those groups, today, you have a continuum of thought. Seems the same you’d get with what you are proposing. In the end, as long as Wall Street/Big Business owns them, left/right/center, I would not expect much. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/10 "2011-09-08T03:03:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think you’d find the groups formed coalitions that largely mirror what we have today and you’d be left, again, with two sides. Well, no, because groups now forced into alliance by the two-party system would be free to vote their views more consistently. E.g., Libertarians in Congress would vote with Staunch Conservatives only on taxing and spending and deregulation – not on moral/social issues or immigration or defense spending; on those issues they would align with the more liberal parties. Hard-Pressed Democrats would align with Staunch Conservatives, or lean that way, on social issues and immigration, but not on tax or fiscal policy, etc. It would be a multi-sided dynamic. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/11 "2011-09-08T04:09:25Z")
I wonder if, given time, these groups would form coalitions similar to our current political landscape. Not that all government’s drive towards that, just that the call of status quo is a strong one. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/12 "2011-09-08T04:56:13Z")
Well, your assumption that these ideological groups of voters would map one-to-one onto a similar set of political parties seems to me a little unrealistic. Proportionally representative electoral systems encourage and reward those politicians who can build and sustain effective coalitions with people who don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with them on every matter, and of course one way to built and sustain effective coalitions is to establish a political party capable of embracing more than one point of view. It’s not the only way, of course, but it’s a way that US political culture is already very familiar with, so there’s no reason to assume that the US system would suddenly lose that capacity. I think the problem that you might have in the US is that, while you can in theory have a proportionally representative congress, you cannot have a proportionately representative presidency. One candidate, and only one candidate, will be successful and will secure 100% of the representation for those who voted for him, while those who voted for every other candidate - even if they constitute an absolute majority - secure no representation at all. There’s nothing proportional about that. You then have an interesting dynamic in which the presidency is secure by a candidate who has been successful at differentiating himself from every other candidate, whereas the dominant figures in Congress will be those who are good at finding common ground with other Congressmen. You may well find that Congress tends to centrism, while the Presidency will tend to the left or the right. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/13 "2011-09-08T04:56:31Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I wonder if, given time, these groups would form coalitions similar to our current political landscape. Not that all government’s drive towards that, just that the call of status quo is a strong one. I’ll see if I can find the article (my Google-Fu is weak tonight it seems) but I read that a First Past the Post voting system almost guarantees a two-party system. So, if you want multiple parties, get rid of FPP voting (such as instant runoff voting but there are others each with there good and bad points). If you do that then I think you’d get what the OP is talking about. Maybe…the influence of money in our elections is powerful such that I think most are co-opted soon after taking office no matter what they said on the trail (there is evidence to support this). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/14 "2011-09-08T06:11:15Z")
Just taking the numbers from Pew, what we’d expect, I think, would be policies that are slightly more pro-environment than we have now, slightly more liberal fiscally than now, slightly more anti-immigrant and significantly more socially conservative than now. An interesting question is: Why the differences? One might suspect vote-trading (“we’ll go along with teaching evolution if you agree to tax cuts”), or the mechanics of 2-party versus multi-party, but I’d look for deeper explanations. The dominance of money has got to be very high on the list. If America were “democratic,” abortion laws would be tougher and religious schools would be subsidized. But right-wing puppet-masters want to keep these issues as wedges so their voters turn out to oppose taxes and regulations. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/15 "2011-09-08T11:57:30Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Well, your assumption that these ideological groups of voters would map one-to-one onto a similar set of political parties seems to me a little unrealistic. I know that, man. Thought experiment. Just assume the frictionless gears. What kind of party lineup actually would emerge (out of now-existing parties) if we were to adopt proportional representation, etc., would be a different debate. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/16 "2011-09-08T13:50:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What kinds of public policies would such a political system likely produce? How would it differ from what we’ve got now? As long as the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other economic elites are telling “we, the people” what to think, I don’t see that it would make much of a difference. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/17 "2011-09-08T16:16:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > As long as the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other economic elites are telling “we, the people” what to think, I don’t see that it would make much of a difference. **Thought experiment.** We’re assuming here that, whatever influence the Koch Bros., etc., may bring to bear on the process, nevertheless the result is as described in the OP – a Congress, etc., that fully and accurately reflects the range of political views among the American general public, or, rather, registered voters. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/18 "2011-09-10T05:26:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Thought experiment.** We’re assuming here that, whatever influence the Koch Bros., etc., may bring to bear on the process, nevertheless the result is as described in the OP – a Congress, etc., that fully and accurately reflects the range of political views among the American general public, or, rather, registered voters. I heard you the first time. You said, assume X instead of Y, and I said assuming X won’t make much of a difference given that you’re leaving condition Z in place in your experiment. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/19 "2011-09-10T07:47:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’ll see if I can find the article (my Google-Fu is weak tonight it seems) but I read that a First Past the Post voting system almost guarantees a two-party system. It doesn’t in the UK or Canada. I think part of it is the size of constituencies. We have ridiculously large ones in this country. With smaller districts, it becomes much easier for a third-party candidate to win. There are no Greens in Congress, but there are Green Party mayors of small towns and city councilmembers in larger cities. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391/20 "2011-09-10T13:58:34Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > I think part of it is the size of constituencies. We have ridiculously large ones in this country. With smaller districts, it becomes much easier for a third-party candidate to win. There are no Greens in Congress, but there are Green Party mayors of small towns and city councilmembers in larger cities. Then why is there (AFAIK) no **state** legislature in the U.S. with a significant third-party caucus or even presence? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thought-experiment-what-if-u-s-government-represented-the-will-of-the-people-more-precisely/595391.md?page=2)