Proportional Representation

This is primarily US-specific, but feel free to contribute to how to go about it overall.

How do we go about enacting proportional representation, to ensure that nearly everyone gets a voice in government?

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I know that each state can choose how to distribute it's electoral votes, so logically, each state can also choose how to distribute it's Congressional seats, correct?

If so, I think a referendum would need to be held in every state to change the way elections work by abolishing single-member districts, and instead making districts that encompass the entire state. (This could be used for the state legislatures first, before how to send representatives to Congress) Failing a state, cities would be the proper way to go, to build up support for such a concept.

Once proportional representation is in effect, however, there's a variety of methods to choose from.

One that looks promising is party list, where one either just votes for a party(closed list), or in order of preference for a party's candidates(open list). Since many people vote for a certain party anyway, either of these types could work nicely.

One benefit of proportional representation is that it would get rid of gerrymandering by merit of abolishing single-member districts, not to mention making sure just about everyone gets a voice in government.

What are your thoughts on how to enact such a thing, in any country that lacks it?

I don't see this happening in any state dominated by the two main parties.

The only thing I'm curious about is this. If there are 100 consituencies of 100 people each, and in each 99 people vote Labour and 1 votes BNP. Now PR says that labour get 99 seats and the BNP get 1 - but who decides who ends up with th BNP man?

You mean basically due away with the Electoral College?

Ensuring that nearly everyone gets a voice in government isn't something to be desired, IMHO at least, but to answer your question, the first step to reaching your goal would be through run-off voting for a wide variety of reasons..

sumit1207 said:

I don't see this happening in any state dominated by the two main parties.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Flying Pig said:

The only thing I'm curious about is this. If there are 100 consituencies of 100 people each, and in each 99 people vote Labour and 1 votes BNP. Now PR says that labour get 99 seats and the BNP get 1 - but who decides who ends up with th BNP man?

Click to expand...

Constituencies/districts are irrelevant in PR. If this is say, 100 counties of a state, it doesn't matter; the state legislature will have 1 BNP and 99 Labour members, because the counties don't exist in terms of the state election. Areas where borders would be drawn would likely be, in the case of the US, federal elections. Each state would send x amount of representatives to Congress, and it would be up to the resident parties to win a seat from those states.

Think, nationwide, a party has 1% of the population, but they are so thinly dispersed among fifty states, that they end up getting less than 1% of the total seats in Congress. It's the price of federalism.

In most circumstances, the BNP wouldn't get any votes at all, in say, an election with 50 seats up for grabs. Unless there's some minority protection in the electoral process, chances are the 50th seat will swing to Labour rather than BNP.

GoodGame said:

You mean basically due away with the Electoral College?

Click to expand...

I am talking, specifically, Congressional elections.

Since there is only one President, there can only be one winner, and thus there's no need for proportional representation in the Presidential election.

You wouldnt get rid of gerrymandering, actually. There is more to gerrymandering than drawing districts. How one elects (the system) also matters.

sumit1207 said:

I don't see this happening in any state dominated by the two main parties.

Click to expand...

dirtyparrot said:

I agree.

Click to expand...

You'll both noticed I proposed a referendum in each state to enact these decisions. The parties won't mean jack squat if the mob decides it's time to change how elections are held in their area. While I disagree with the people directly having a voice in government, I do agree that they should be the primary force that decides how the government is elected in the first place.

Should they wish proportional representation... well, so be it.

Kerozine said:

Ensuring that nearly everyone gets a voice in government isn't something to be desired, IMHO at least, but to answer your question, the first step to reaching your goal would be through run-off voting for a wide variety of reasons..

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't that just skew things in favor of the two dominant parties even further?

Taniciusfox said:

Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't that just skew things in favor of the two dominant parties even further?

Click to expand...

Err, no..

Run-off voting inherently makes elections more competitive. Currently in the US, it's informally applied through the Dem./Rep. primaries, but isn't officially instituted into the electoral process, and so you're stuck with the only two-party elected representatives in government as you have now.

It should probably be noted that while IRV is an excellent way for a small party to get a minor influence, it's actually counter-productive if they want to win elections. That, and it makes people more likely to vote party line.

Miles Teg said:

It should probably be noted that while IRV is an excellent way for a small party to get a minor influence, it's actually counter-productive if they want to win elections. That, and it makes people more likely to vote party line.

Click to expand...

'Win' in what sense?

Kerozine said:

'Win' in what sense?

Click to expand...

In the sense of being able to capture a majority.

Miles Teg said:

In the sense of being able to capture a majority.

Click to expand...

Any minor/marginal political party would see it as a major breakthrough in a two-party system as opposed to a loss of any sort. Wielding influence, however minute, in legislature is infinitely better than having none at all.

Taniciusfox said:

Constituencies/districts are irrelevant in PR. If this is say, 100 counties of a state, it doesn't matter; the state legislature will have 1 BNP and 99 Labour members, because the counties don't exist in terms of the state election. Areas where borders would be drawn would likely be, in the case of the US, federal elections. Each state would send x amount of representatives to Congress, and it would be up to the resident parties to win a seat from those states.

Think, nationwide, a party has 1% of the population, but they are so thinly dispersed among fifty states, that they end up getting less than 1% of the total seats in Congress. It's the price of federalism.

In most circumstances, the BNP wouldn't get any votes at all, in say, an election with 50 seats up for grabs. Unless there's some minority protection in the electoral process, chances are the 50th seat will swing to Labour rather than BNP.

Click to expand...

Well there are a lot of different forms of PR. Specifically there are several models where constituencies get a directly elected representative and there is then a "top-up" to rectify the local first past the post with the overall average. One of the benefits of this kind of system is that if a representative is busy with a cabinet position or whatever they are often next to useless at representing their local constituents in any event, so it could be a good thing for the constituency representatives to be actually devoted to, well, representing their constituents while representatives without a specific constituency attend to the affairs of state.

I'm generally in favour of PR, but I think having a minimum of, say, 5% of national votes before getting a seat in legislature would be a good idea.

One thing I like about our Westminster FPTP system is that governments can actually get things done. I don't envy the compromises that often occur in PR systems, but frankly anything is better than the utterly ineffectual system you guys in the US have

I'm a fan of proportional representation, but what Mise said. Perhaps only 3% or something, though. Even with a 3% minimum, you'd only get 4 parties in Australia. The three currently represented, plus the Greens, who garner more votes that one of those three parties, which has 10 of 150 seats.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I know that each state can choose how to distribute it's electoral votes, so logically, each state can also choose how to distribute it's Congressional seats, correct?

Click to expand...

Proportional representation would violate current federal law. The good news is that apportionment law has a long and messy history of non-enforcement. Quite a few states had at-large representatives in the past, though these were not proptionally chosen.

Proportional representation is impossible.

In any election, there must be at least one loser. And all citizens who voted for the loser get no representation at all. Do away with government completely, and power reverts to whoever is physically strongest.

Democracy is as close as we can get. Deal with it and quit whining.

Single district plurality voting sucks, but party-list based proportional representation is much worse. I will never accept a system in which the voters choose a party instead of voting for individual candidates based on their own merits. We should be trying to minimize the importance of party affiliation, not increasing it.



Instant runoff voting also sucks.


We should not settle for a system where voters can express only one preference or the order of preferences, but demand the right to rate the strength of each preference.

I support Range Voting, but would also be ok with Fractional Ballots.


Range Voting is shown to have a strong nursery effect for minor parties, yet also makes extremists far less electable than moderates. Polarizing the nation in this system is a terrible strategy, as being considered an acceptable compromise by most of the electorate is more effective than being hugely popular with a plurality yet despised by everyone else.


There are so called Proportional Representation variants of Range Voting which I am willing to consider. However, you might as well though just have multimember districts where several top ranted candidates get seats. How many other candidates run or what they stand for doesn't really effect how one candidate is rated in Range Voting (apart from having more positions shape debates), negating the normal downsides of multimember districts.


@BasketCase
That depends on how one defines a vote. If a vote is considering giving one's full support towards a single candidate then you are right. If we redefine a vote as giving input on each candidate, then you are wrong. There may be many who don't get their top choice, but everyone's preferences would count equally towards selecting a winner.

Democracy is a rather broad term. Plurality Voting, PR, IRV, Fractional Ballots, and Range voting are all democratic mechanisms. The latter two can actually be considered more democratic, as they far more sensitively measure the preferences of the populace. The plurality system is far better suited for demagoguery though.