Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
We do have proportional representation. It's the House of Representatives. I vote for the man or woman I want to represent me. If those of like mind hold the day, my guy or gal wins. One person, one vote, for one person. All of those other ridiculous systems for counting votes or voting have no place in America, period.
I suppose that logic makes sense... but why discount the views of 49% just because 51% voted for the other guy? Isn't America founded on ensuring that both the minority and majority have nearly-equal power(i.e. the bicameral Congress)?
Because I don't want it here.
What about if the majority of your state chose to enact proportional representation for their state?
Or, to test the states' rights position, what if California, for instance, chose to use proportional representation when sending people to the House?
Pretty much. Right now white people are getting zero representation by the President.
...I have no idea how to reply to this. Representation should be based solely on political views, not race. Race has no place in government.
Proportional voting allows minor parties to gain some sort of vote in line with the number of people who actually want the party to have a vote. (and by party, I mean people in the party)
Precisely, and in the case of the United States, as we supposedly value the ability of the majority and minority to have fairly equal power(via a bicameral legislature giving strength to the large states and small states), it makes no sense to not take into account the minority viewpoints.
There is a valid argument to be made for districts, which I think is what VRWC is referring to. Most states are sufficiently large to have a fairly diverse population, and by making the constituency smaller, you can in some sense guarantee a more accurate representation. In my [formerly] home state of Georgia, for example, there is the metropolis of Atlanta, a few smaller cities, and a bunch of farmland/nothing depending on the area. It would be difficult to argue that the people who grew up in cities and live in cities could truly represent the rural districts; the opposite is also true. Thus by limiting the area, in many areas you can effectively exclude the other.
I suppose... but what if one district leans heavily Republican, and the other Democrat, but between them, there's enough for a Libertarian seat, but the winner-takes-all system prevents this?
That is why I hate districting. It keeps the third parties from racking up even one or two seats(not counting the occassional independent in Congress). If we base the results on votes alone and pretty much dissolve borders for the sake of the election, then it ensures that most relevant views are represented.
If there were a party list, my concern would be that wherever the power center is, that kind of politician would be overrepresented. To some extent, you might be able to offset this with different 'lifestyle' parties (e.g., a farmers' party) but this is the US we're talking about so I do not really see that happening.
Ideally, for me, each party would choose it's candidates through internal democracy, akin to how candidates win the primary elections and then are presented to the national elections.