NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll leave this fully as open discussion. I, personally, believe the plurality voting system 'ere and in the US caused several problems, namely:

*tactical voting
*wasted votes
*safe seats
*low voting turnout - apathetic atmosphere.

Your thoughts? Can proportional representation ever be implemented on a national level in the US, Canada or UK? Is it worth it? Does it work?

The only way to find out if it worked would be to establih it, and so far, it has not been established.

Interesting point of view though.

The only way to find out if it worked would be to establih it, and so far, it has not been established.

Interesting point of view though.

Northern Ireland Assembly. New York used it once.

Wikipedia proves worthy for all information...

Northern Ireland Assembly. New York used it once.

Wikipedia proves worthy for all information...
>=/ Like I'm supposed to know every government ever known to human kind!
~O: new york?
Spiffin
x3

Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican Party party machine

und das...

A good example of this is Canada, where, in 1993, the separatist Bloc Québécois formed the opposition, despite getting only 13% of the vote. In the 2006 election, the Bloc Québécois received 51 seats (16.6% of the total seats) with 10.5% of the total votes. In contrast, the New Democratic Party received 29 seats (9.4% of the total seats) with 17.5% of the total votes.

well as flawed as the voting system is it does allow the people who want to vote a say it may not always be the best thing but its never the worst thing either

All in all it works though a smart voter is the best voter so education needs to be encouraged unless you want the BNP

I support a voting system called the 'Preferential Vote.' More on that later, I'm too tired to explain ATM.

well as flawed as the voting system is it does allow the people who want to vote a say it may not always be the best thing but its never the worst thing either

All in all it works though a smart voter is the best voter so education needs to be encouraged unless you want the BNP

Hmm...at abosolute most they could get 1-3% or the vote. Thats no more than 20 seats.

I support a voting system called the 'Preferential Vote.' More on that later, I'm too tired to explain ATM.

Same here. Thats a proportioanl voting system.

Proportional representation has it's advantages, but I feel they are far out weighed by it's flaws. It reduces the probability of strong leadership; promotes coalitionism and comittee decision making; encourages extremist and one-issue parties; and often gives small, unrepresentational parites far greater power than they deserve.

A perfect example of the latter was the Australian Senate, until recently. The Australian Democrats, a fringe party that could never have hoped to control the senate in it's own right, nevertheless held the power to decide whether any bill passed or failed. Only the Government and the Official Opposition working in tandem could stop them, an event that was, needless to say, rather rare.

Proportional representation has it's advantages, but I feel they are far out weighed by it's flaws. It reduces the probability of strong leadership; promotes coalitionism and comittee decision making; encourages extremist and one-issue parties; and often gives small, unrepresentational parites far greater power than they deserve.

A perfect example of the latter was the Australian Senate, until recently. The Australian Democrats, a fringe party that could never have hoped to control the senate in it's own right, nevertheless held the power to decide whether any bill passed or failed. Only the Government and the Official Opposition working in tandem could stop them, an event that was, needless to say, rather rare.

Fantastic! So they had the number of seats that they deserved? Great! Working together in coalitions - thats good too, more people then support the Govt! Fringe parties? Not anymore, they had support all along that they deserve representation for!

Seems to work pretty well for us in Ireland :)

I would prefer an "Open List (OL)" system with multiple member constituencies.

In Scotland at the moment we have an hybrid system for Holyrood which uses "First past the post (FPTP)" for 73 seats and a "Closed List (CL)" system for another 56 regional seats. It works to an extent but I feel it would be better to have one system with only one vote being cast.

If we take Scotland as an the example, under the OL system, the country would be split into 42 constituencies of 3 members. You would cast your vote for the party you wished to back by ticking the box of the candidate from that party you preferred (1 of 3). When all the votes are counted, the party with the biggest share gets the first seat and the candidate from that party with the most endorsements is elected. That party's vote is then divided by two and the party with the greatest share after that gets the next seat. It may still be the party who got the first seat but that is unlikely. The party who got the second seat has it's share divided by 2 (or 3 if it also got the first seat) and the final seat is determined by the outcome of that.

(I would leave Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles as FPTP due to their remoteness and size.)

We are getting "Single Transferable Vote (STV)" foisted on us for the local council elections next year. I don't like this system as it is too complex, takes too long to get a result, is fairly open to corruption and if you want an explanation of how those who got elected actually got elected, you'd get a small book put through your letterbox :rolleyes: .

That would make:
CL for EU elections
FPTP for Westminster elections
Hybrid FPTP/CL for Holyrood elections
STV for Council elections

Way too complex :confused: . Better to have OL for all of them :p .

Same here. Thats a proportioanl voting system.

NO IT ISN'T! Preferential voting has nothing to do with Proportional voting.

Preferential voting is used in both the Australian Senate (Proportional) and the Australian House of Representatives (Non-Proportional). It means that when you vote, instead of voting for one person, you put a number in the box of every candidate, from the one you most support to the one you least. When the votes are counted, whoever gets the least votes is eliminated, and his votes distributed as the voter desired among the second choices. You continue to eliminate candidates until only two remain - and the winner can automatically claim a majority!

It's a truly terrible system. No matter who you actually support, your vote winds up going to one of the two major parties in almost every case, cementing their power base - and enabling ANYONE who wins to be able to claim a "Mandate" to do whatever they like.

I agree, the New Zealand parliament has the same problem. However, it is, in my opinion, even more unfair to have a furthest past the post voting system.

Originally posted by Dododecapod
NO IT ISN'T! Preferential voting has nothing to do with Proportional voting.

Preferential voting is used in both the Australian Senate (Proportional) and the Australian House of Representatives (Non-Proportional). It means that when you vote, instead of voting for one person, you put a number in the box of every candidate, from the one you most support to the one you least. When the votes are counted, whoever gets the least votes is eliminated, and his votes distributed as the voter desired among the second choices. You continue to eliminate candidates until only two remain - and the winner can automatically claim a majority!
This is the STV that is being foisted on Scotland for local elections next year. It is being touted as Proportional representation. As I've already said, I don't like it.

Fantastic! So they had the number of seats that they deserved? Great! Working together in coalitions - thats good too, more people then support the Govt! Fringe parties? Not anymore, they had support all along that they deserve representation for!

Except that the Dems really were just a fringe party (they didn't start that way, but certainly have been since the late 80's), with very little support. They had far more power than they deserved.

Coalitionism can be a good thing, I agree, but they also have an unfortunate tendency to collapse under pressure. Strong leadership, in legislatures (and especially in Westminster Systems, where there is no separation between Legislature and Effective Administration) comes from being able to push through emergency legislation when it is absolutely needed. Coalition governments are often unable to do exactly that (check out the Weimar Republic, especially during the Ruhr Crisis).

On speaking to a politician who had experience of a STV election some years ago, he told me of the unlikely result. It turned out that a candidate who finished second bottom of the original poll (of about six) ended up being elected because she may not have been the first choice of many people but nobody disliked her enough to put her bottom of their lists. Another reason why I want an Open List system rather than STV :rolleyes: .

Except that the Dems really were just a fringe party (they didn't start that way, but certainly have been since the late 80's), with very little support. They had far more power than they deserved.

Coalitionism can be a good thing, I agree, but they also have an unfortunate tendency to collapse under pressure. Strong leadership, in legislatures (and especially in Westminster Systems, where there is no separation between Legislature and Effective Administration) comes from being able to push through emergency legislation when it is absolutely needed. Coalition governments are often unable to do exactly that (check out the Weimar Republic, especially during the Ruhr Crisis).

Indeed, and I do study that at the mo'. Sorry for my extreme over-the-top outburst earlier too. But in my view the flaws it has are nothing compared to the true democracy it has. You have to ask yourself, do I want my vote to count? If so, support PR. If you believe, 'Well, one of the two major parties is ideal for the country and, I guess, my support means nothing' then support first-past-the-post.

Thank God for the Electoral Congress... it makes it worth living in 42 states.

There are 538 votes in the current college, and it'll stay that way unless the House of Representatives gets larger or smaller.

Hypothetically, an urban/big city candidate could carry the big 8 states and would still lose, even with: California (55), New York (31), Texas (34), Florida (27), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21) Illinois (21) and New Jersey (15) = 224.

You'll note that those 8 states are the home of almost all of America's top 10 largest cities (barring Phoenix, Arizona).
A direct voting system would basically disenfrancise most of the country: the US isn't like many other nations where most of the populace lives in the capital and perhaps another city or three.

Indeed, and I do study that at the mo'. Sorry for my extreme over-the-top outburst earlier too. But in my view the flaws it has are nothing compared to the true democracy it has. You have to ask yourself, do I want my vote to count? If so, support PR. If you believe, 'Well, one of the two major parties is ideal for the country and, I guess, my support means nothing' then support first-past-the-post.

This is something that, I must admit, baffles me somewhat. I don't understand why people feel that, if their candidate fails to get a seat, their vote is somehow "wasted". To me, a vote is a vote. It always counts. Look at the last US Presidential election; a difference of a very few votes in any one of a half-dozen states could have resulted in President Kerry.

To me, the only system that actually wastes votes is the Preferential system we discussed earlier. Otherwise, in addition to deciding the winner, the vote also provides an unimpeachable view of how the electorate feels about the current policies. A landslide shows a strong view, one way or another; a middling vote shows a genial view. Either way, it has meaning.

I would prefer an "Open List (OL)" system with multiple member constituencies.

In Scotland at the moment we have an hybrid system for Holyrood which uses "First past the post (FPTP)" for 73 seats and a "Closed List (CL)" system for another 56 regional seats. It works to an extent but I feel it would be better to have one system with only one vote being cast.

If we take Scotland as an the example, under the OL system, the country would be split into 42 constituencies of 3 members. You would cast your vote for the party you wished to back by ticking the box of the candidate from that party you preferred (1 of 3). When all the votes are counted, the party with the biggest share gets the first seat and the candidate from that party with the most endorsements is elected. That party's vote is then divided by two and the party with the greatest share after that gets the next seat. It may still be the party who got the first seat but that is unlikely. The party who got the second seat has it's share divided by 2 (or 3 if it also got the first seat) and the final seat is determined by the outcome of that.

(I would leave Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles as FPTP due to their remoteness and size.)

We are getting "Single Transferable Vote (STV)" foisted on us for the local council elections next year. I don't like this system as it is too complex, takes too long to get a result, is fairly open to corruption and if you want an explanation of how those who got elected actually got elected, you'd get a small book put through your letterbox :rolleyes: .

That would make:
CL for EU elections
FPTP for Westminster elections
Hybrid FPTP/CL for Holyrood elections
STV for Council elections

Way too complex :confused: . Better to have OL for all of them :p .

Yeah, but list systems pretty much bugger independent candidates, which don't use/have party lists, as such, and removes the 'local representative' factor. Personally, I feel that STV gives much more choice than list systems, and still gives generally proportional representation. It doesn't matter how complex it is, all you need to know is to rank candidates by preference, kind of like you don't need to know how your TV works to use it.

But let's not get too geeky, no?

Originally posted by New Burmesia
Yeah, but list systems pretty much bugger independent candidates, which don't use/have party lists, as such, and removes the 'local representative' factor.
Not really, you just have a list of 1 and if you get enough votes, you're in :) .

To me, the only system that actually wastes votes is the Preferential system we discussed earlier. Otherwise, in addition to deciding the winner, the vote also provides an unimpeachable view of how the electorate feels about the current policies. A landslide shows a strong view, one way or another; a middling vote shows a genial view. Either way, it has meaning.

Surely the 1st preference vote would tell you exactly how people feel about that candidate. If he/she gets 75% of it, you know he/she is popular, and the other 25%, you know he/she isn't. If neither gets more than 50%, and wins on transfers, it shows that neither major candidate has policies that connect wit hthe general electorate.

Not really, you just have a list of 1 and if you get enough votes, you're in :) .

But if you get a large percentage of the vote, say 5 seats' worth, it kind of buggers PR, the main reason behind list systems.

Proportional rep, all the way.

The current system in voting in Canada is crap because you can only vote for a party in your home riding (electoral district) to gain a seat in Parliament. I'd like to see my ballot cast to go towards the popular vote and represent the number of voters supporting that party/individual.

This is something that, I must admit, baffles me somewhat. I don't understand why people feel that, if their candidate fails to get a seat, their vote is somehow "wasted". To me, a vote is a vote. It always counts. Look at the last US Presidential election; a difference of a very few votes in any one of a half-dozen states could have resulted in President Kerry.

To me, the only system that actually wastes votes is the Preferential system we discussed earlier. Otherwise, in addition to deciding the winner, the vote also provides an unimpeachable view of how the electorate feels about the current policies. A landslide shows a strong view, one way or another; a middling vote shows a genial view. Either way, it has meaning.

Does in England. If you live, like me, in a pretty-safe seat and vote for anyone else other than the leading party - as did 52% of our constituency - it means 52% of us were wasted. It is better reflected in Tower Hamlets were George Gallaway - the muslim come socialist come ba'thist - was elected. In his constituency 64% voted specifically against and the black female jew who ran against him only lost by roughly a thousand votes. Unfortunately, this left much mre unhappy than pleased.

Oh and Labour was chosen by about 35% of the UK...but has 60% of parliamentary seats...

Originally posted by New Burmesia
But if you get a large percentage of the vote, say 5 seats' worth, it kind of buggers PR, the main reason behind list systems.
True, but it is unlikely and no system is perfect. It would still be better than FPTP where as much as 70% of the vote can be wasted, and the use of which saw Labour get over 90% of the seats in Glasgow City Council with less than half the vote :( .

True, but it is unlikely and no system is perfect. It would still be better than FPTP where as much as 70% of the vote can be wasted, and the use of which saw Labour get over 90% of the seats in Glasgow City Council with less than half the vote :( .

Or like in Canada, where (according to my mates politics textbook) some Conservatives got 50% of the vote but no seats at all.

I'd still have lists over FPTP, but STV over both. I think it's just a matter of personal opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post#Effect_on_representation

We are getting "Single Transferable Vote (STV)" foisted on us for the local council elections next year. I don't like this system as it is too complex, takes too long to get a result, is fairly open to corruption and if you want an explanation of how those who got elected actually got elected, you'd get a small book put through your letterbox.

What are they doing to make it so complex? The premise should be rather simple, take about 2 minutes to explain and diagram. If that isn't the case, I suspect it's been abused, mangled, and had so many changes as to make it ineffective. As far as getting a result, unless you have a very large number of results (i.e. candidates), or it has been made overly complex, it shouldn't take that long to read the results into a computer and have it run the algorithm. How is it fairly open to corruption (unless, of course, the system has been made overly complex, like I said before)? Is the book they gave you all of the data as well as all the votes in a step-by-step process, or are there sections where they summarize the situation at each elimination? If there is a summarization, just use that instead of just looking at the book size and complaining about how large it is. If not, then something is HORRIBLY wrong with your system.


NO IT ISN'T! Preferential voting has nothing to do with Proportional voting.

Preferential voting is used in both the Australian Senate (Proportional) and the Australian House of Representatives (Non-Proportional). It means that when you vote, instead of voting for one person, you put a number in the box of every candidate, from the one you most support to the one you least. When the votes are counted, whoever gets the least votes is eliminated, and his votes distributed as the voter desired among the second choices. You continue to eliminate candidates until only two remain - and the winner can automatically claim a majority!

When you only have a single seat open for the candidates, it's a proportion of 100%. If there were two seats open, and the top two candidates made it, would you still say it's not proportional? The problem that is displayed in this instance is not the voting system, it's the single-district winner-take-all system. To have a representative vote, you need multiple-seat, preferential voting; otherwise the system doesn't work as well.

One way to look at it is from the US perspective. What would have happened in the US if Florida and Ohio both used preferential voting? The Nader vote may have been enough to change the results in either state (unless you want to argue Naderites would have ranked Bush ahead of Gore and Kerry).

It's a truly terrible system. No matter who you actually support, your vote winds up going to one of the two major parties in almost every case, cementing their power base - and enabling ANYONE who wins to be able to claim a "Mandate" to do whatever they like.

As if the current system of single-district winner-take-all doesn't do that? As is, votes pretty much only go to the two leading parties, cementing their power base, and leading to mandate claims. The only difference with preferential voting in this case is that if you support a third party, you can list them first without worrying that you're robbing the main party you perfer more/hate less of a vote they may desparately need. How many people didn't vote for the candidate they actually perfer in 2004 because they know it's robbing them of a chance to vote against Bush/Kerry? Ranked voting eliminates the spoiler effect.

This is something that, I must admit, baffles me somewhat. I don't understand why people feel that, if their candidate fails to get a seat, their vote is somehow "wasted". To me, a vote is a vote. It always counts. Look at the last US Presidential election; a difference of a very few votes in any one of a half-dozen states could have resulted in President Kerry.

To me, the only system that actually wastes votes is the Preferential system we discussed earlier. Otherwise, in addition to deciding the winner, the vote also provides an unimpeachable view of how the electorate feels about the current policies. A landslide shows a strong view, one way or another; a middling vote shows a genial view. Either way, it has meaning.

Not really, for the reason I just stated above. All you have to do is look at the overall voting statistics. If the two main candidates didn't received a hugh amount of first-place votes to start and were neck-and-neck through the rounds of elimination, then you know that they were not that well liked and that people were fairly split on the candidates. If a candidate didn't receive a hugh amount of first-place votes, but still won, you know that they were a comprimise candidate, someone a lot of people can say is okay, even if they weren't the number one choice.

It reduces the probability of strong leadership; promotes coalitionism and comittee decision making; encourages extremist and one-issue parties; and often gives small, unrepresentational parites far greater power than they deserve.

Strong leadership is a fuzzy thing, and good strong leadership is *very* hard to find. I would perfer a coalition or comittee as opposed to one group making all of the decisions. If the system isn't horrendously flawed, any group will get just the support they receive. If people care about a single issue enough to vote for the party, they will do so and deserve their voice to be heard. How do they give the "small, unrepresentational parties" far greater power than "they deserve"? In fact, your wording seems to be a bit manipulative, what do you mean by "unrepresentational" and "deserve"? Are you saying they didn't receive the votes and still got in and thus shouldn't be in office? Please clarify.

On speaking to a politician who had experience of a STV election some years ago, he told me of the unlikely result. It turned out that a candidate who finished second bottom of the original poll (of about six) ended up being elected because she may not have been the first choice of many people but nobody disliked her enough to put her bottom of their lists. Another reason why I want an Open List system rather than STV .

Same thing I mintioned two paragraphs above. Is it really a problem when someone that everyone agreed is okay/not too horrible is elected? What would you perfer? Is it really worse than what the US has right now, where an candidate that a very large portion of the electorate detested and another very large portion loved is in office? STV may lead to that as well, but is less likely since one seat tends to lead to non-extremists having the larger say by far, but it also supports the compromise candidate, too. Note that this is not the case with multiple seat districts, which allow more extremists in, but is also more proportional (yes, there really can be that many nutcases out there to get one of them a seat).

Thank God for the Electoral Congress... it makes it worth living in 42 states.

There are 538 votes in the current college, and it'll stay that way unless the House of Representatives gets larger or smaller.

Hypothetically, an urban/big city candidate could carry the big 8 states and would still lose, even with: California (55), New York (31), Texas (34), Florida (27), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21) Illinois (21) and New Jersey (15) = 224.

You'll note that those 8 states are the home of almost all of America's top 10 largest cities (barring Phoenix, Arizona).
A direct voting system would basically disenfrancise most of the country: the US isn't like many other nations where most of the populace lives in the capital and perhaps another city or three.

Would you support a system where the electoral college votes are proportional, but the number of votes per state stay the same? Closer to direct, but allows smaller states to still have more influence than their relative population. Just curious.

I don't support any of the above, because government will still be a matter of special interests and others trying to take from others to get what they want, and politicians prostituting themselves to hold on to their seats. I'd say what I think the preferable system would be, but I just got up and am not interested in being erroneously compared to Hitler right now.

I don't support any of the above, because government will still be a matter of special interests and others trying to take from others to get what they want, and politicians prostituting themselves to hold on to their seats. I'd say what I think the preferable system would be, but I just got up and am not interested in being erroneously compared to Hitler right now.

And this is any different from normal life ... how? If your system relies on people being any different (irregardless of if it's a community or a single ruler), I don't think it will be successful, as much as I may like for people to be different.

Originally posted by One-Ballia
What are they doing to make it so complex?
They are not really making it more complex. I just feel it should be obvious why some-one who was elected actually got there. With STV, you just have to accept whatever they tell you and hope they're honest about it. The use of a computer to work out who gets what percentage of some-one elses vote only increases my unease over the system. One line of code could ensure the right result is arrived at. The book I referred to was just an exageration of the list of complex calculations that would have to be posted to some-one should they want to know exactly why a candidate got elected. Even then they may be none the wiser :confused: .

Originally posted by One-Ballia
Is it really a problem when someone that everyone agreed is okay/not too horrible is elected?
Well, I'd rather some-one people had shown a preference for got elected. The example I gave showed some-one people hadn't given a second thought to getting elected. We could end up with a Parliament full of people no-one had heard of ... even in their own constituency :( .

Basically I would prefer STV over FPTP, but for clarity I feel a List system is preferable to both. It's a personal preference :) .

They are not really making it more complex. I just feel it should be obvious why some-one who was elected actually got there. With STV, you just have to accept whatever they tell you and hope they're honest about it. The use of a computer to work out who gets what percentage of some-one elses vote only increases my unease over the system. One line of code could ensure the right result is arrived at. The book I referred to was just an exageration of the list of complex calculations that would have to be posted to some-one should they want to know exactly why a candidate got elected. Even then they may be none the wiser :confused: .


Well, I'd rather some-one people had shown a preference for got elected. The example I gave showed some-one people hadn't given a second thought to getting elected. We could end up with a Parliament full of people no-one had heard of ... even in their own constituency :( .

Basically I would prefer STV over FPTP, but for clarity I feel a List system is preferable to both. It's a personal preference :) .
So long as accurate data is posted about each vote (just the vote, not who did it, of course), then you are in the same position as any other system, hoping they tell you the votes honestly. Just take the data and run it through the algorithm. If it's not made more complex, as you said, anyone can basically do it. Have an open source version run it, see how the data compares. If they match, good. If not, then you can explore why not. Since the source code is known, anyone can read the code, run through it, see what it does, especially since the overall algorithm is very easy. Easy comparison.

If someone got elected, people had to show some preference to that candidate. The preference may not be "I whole-heartedly love this candidate", but they still get a preference of "this candidate is decent" or "please, not this other guy". I perfer someone many people say okay as opposed to the large amount of polarization that brings out some of the worst elements of politics that can occur otherwise.


I actually don't think that the OL system is the best. I would perfer the multiple-district approach where you just rank candidates, it's simple for voters and it's not that difficult to explain how it works (it's just longer than the 10-second dumbed-down version people are used to). Just because I like one guy in a party doesn't mean I like the party. I wouldn't vote for almost any Republican or Democrat (as if there's a real difference between the two, anyway), but there are actually a few select individuals that I would seriously consider voting for over some of the third party candidates. Your system discourages that, and actually makes people align more into a party system "my-side-is-always-right" mentality. It also lacks the preference voting that I think is very useful in letting people select the candidate they perfer most, not the one they think is most likely to win. If people do like an overall party, they will rank each candidate in that party above any other candidate.

I wouldn't vote for almost any Republican or Democrat (as if there's a real difference between the two, anyway), but there are actually a few select individuals that I would seriously consider voting for over some of the third party candidates.

As a general rule, who would you support if I may ask?

Originally Posted by One-Ballia
Since the source code is known, anyone can read the code, run through it, see what it does, especially since the overall algorithm is very easy. Easy comparison.
Your average voter wont do that though. they'll just look puzzled, scratch their head and move on. Perhaps a little more disenchanted with the political process.

Originally Posted by One-Ballia
If someone got elected, people had to show some preference to that candidate. The preference may not be "I whole-heartedly love this candidate", but they still get a preference of "this candidate is decent" or "please, not this other guy".
The point I didn't make to well is that people would be getting elected that voters had no real knowledge of. The system requires them to rank all the candidates so they will just put a number beside the names without actually knowing who that person was. That's how the candidate in my example got elected. Sure, people could take more of an interest in politics but I feel they wont :( . And so we will end up with a parliament full of nobodies and wont the critics of democracy have a field day with that :rolleyes: .

I realise OL is not perfect, but no system is.

As a general rule, who would you support if I may ask?

The top one who comes to mind is Sen. Feingold. He actually is willing to do stuff that isn't politically smart, but is what he believes (and I agree with, of course). Only guy to vote against the Patriot Act the first time around, is willing to bring up legislation even though he knows it will fail, willing to bring up censuring the President just to bring the discussion to the table in spite of the snowball's-chance-in-hell of getting it passed. I doubt he would get the Dem. nomination, though, because of those exact reasons. Note that I would have seriously considered him even before I moved to Wisconsin right before January, and if he had run in 2004, probably would have voted for him.

Your average voter wont do that though. they'll just look puzzled, scratch their head and move on. Perhaps a little more disenchanted with the political process.


The point I didn't make to well is that people would be getting elected that voters had no real knowledge of. The system requires them to rank all the candidates so they will just put a number beside the names without actually knowing who that person was. That's how the candidate in my example got elected. Sure, people could take more of an interest in politics but I feel they wont :( . And so we will end up with a parliament full of nobodies and wont the critics of democracy have a field day with that :rolleyes: .

I realise OL is not perfect, but no system is.
Will the average voter even care to look at it anyway? Probably not. They will know what their part is, the basics of how it works, and will be content with that, letting other people do the checking for them.

Nothing should require the voter to rank all candidates. I wouldn't mind mind a "none" option to be votable, as well. The system does work better when all candidates are ranked by everyone, but it's certainly not required for the algorithm to work. The system is designed to be to the voter's benefit to rank pretty much all candidates. If no one knew anything about the candidate that did get elected in your case, it means they still perferred the random chance compared to who else they could have selected (i.e. they felt the remaining candidates were scum or something of that sort). If the only people getting elected are nobodies, politicians will realize that what they have been doing up to that point is not really popular and will stop doing it. Politicians only do something so long as they think they can gain/keep power and votes by doing it.

We need to try it in the House of Representatives first...then we can move on to the senate...and maybe eventually combine both into one.

Can proportional representation ever be implemented on a national level in the US

There is plenty of room for doubt. I wrote a paper for a comparative politics class, wherein I compared the Mixed Member Proportional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional) electoral systems of the German Bundestag and the New Zealand House of Representatives. One of the phenomenon noted was that the results for the "party list" ("Zweitstimme" on this sample ballot (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg)) and "constituency" ("Erststimme" on this sample ballot (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg)) part of the vote in the German Bundestag looked very much like the sort of results one would expect from a plurality "first-past-the-post" system. The CDU/CSU and the SPD both dominate while the other smaller parties enjoy only relatively small levels of support. On the other hand, in New Zealand, results for the "constituency" part of the vote seemed to resemble results one would see in a plurality system (as might be expected), and the "party list" part of the vote displayed the characteristics of a multiparty system, where support for each party moved up and down rather dramatically, indicating high levels of competition (as might be expected from a proportional system).

The question was: why does the German Mixed Member Proportional electoral system appear to produce regular bipolar electoral results (CDU/CSU vs. SPD) in a fashion resembling a plurality system for both halves of the vote, whereas the Mixed Member Proportional system in New Zealand produces results resembling a plurality system for the "constituency" vote (as one would expect) while producing results resembling a multiparty system for the "party list" vote (again, as one would expect)? My answer was in two parts:

1) The implementation of the MMP electoral system in New Zealand is relatively new, and so the system may still be settling down or establishing a regular pattern. In future elections, it may very well turn out that the pattern of electoral results in New Zealand begin to resemble those in Germany. In short, more data are needed.

2) (Assuming for the moment that future data continue to exhibit the presently observed trends...) It is not enough to focus on the mechanics of the electoral system alone. One must also consider the history and political culture of the political system in question. The history and political culture in Germany likely plays a significant role in the formation of the patterns of electoral results seen there. The Weimar Republic established a multiparty democracy, where in many parties, often of extreme ideologies, engaged in what is now largely seen as out of control competition were in it was extremely difficult to maintain a government. This condition is even blamed for the eventual rise of totalitarian fascism. This course of events changed German political culture into one that values stability above all else. Multiparty government is seen as a greatly destabilizing factor. Thus, the MMP system was established as a means to stabilize the electoral system by adding aspects of the plurality system to the proportional representation system. Now, most voters divide their support among the bipolar powers (CDU/CSU vs. SPD) and the minority parties must form coalitions with these stable powers before they can exert influence. New Zealand approached MMP from essentially the opposite direction. Originally, New Zealand operated a purely plurality system. However, women, the Māori, and other minorities often complained about lack of representation. Taking Germany as their model, eventually a MMP electoral system was established in order to mix aspects of proportional representation with the plurality system in order to increase individual citizens' representation and party representation. Arguably, the purpose of the establishment of the MMP system in Germany was to reduce political representation in order to avoid a repeat of the chaos seen during the Weimar Republic. Whereas, the purpose of the establishment of MMP in New Zealand was to increase political representation for women, Māori, and other minorities. Thus, in Germany we see electoral results that resemble those of a plurality system in both parts of the vote, whereas in New Zealand we see electoral results that a multiparty/proportional system in the relevant part of the vote, even though they both implement largely the same mixed proportional system.


The point of all the above is to indicate that the establishment of a proportional representation system in the United States may not necessarily result in a multiparty system. In American political culture, the bipolar divide between Republican and Democrat, Left and Right, Red and Blue, is very well established. Such a divide goes all the way back to the very beginnings of the nation: Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist. Considering the major impact that political culture and the experiences of history appear to have had on the workings of the electoral systems in Germany and New Zealand, there is then serious doubt as to the potential effectiveness of a move to proportional representation in the United States. It could very well be that voters will continue to divide their support between Republican and Democrat as they always have, ending up essentially with a two-party system regardless of the nature of the electoral system implemented. The specific electoral system can only open the door to the possibility of a multiparty electoral system. But ultimately it is up to the voters to decide if they actually want such; there is serious room for doubt as to whether the mechanics of the electoral system can accomplish such alone.

(and I have supported the move to a proportional representation system in the United States here and elsewhere. Even so, I can see that such a move is not necessarily going to create a multiparty system. At the moment, my chief concern is the ability to create meaningful representation of minority parties in the government at all. Removing the two-party domination, and creating a multiparty system, is a problem to be handled later. One hurdle at a time)