• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US switch to a proportional representation system?

Should the US switch to a proportional representation system?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • No

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • Switch to something else

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Total voters
    24
R

Roycarn

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
200
Reaction score
77
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Decades have passed in the US since a third party has been represented in Congress (aside from independents). Even outside the context of third parties, many complain about the lack of proportionality in the United States' elected bodies.

The non-partisan voting reform group FairVote was established initially in 1992 as the Citizens for Proportional Representation. Since then, they have continued to advocate for voting reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting for single-winner elections as well as the national popular vote for presidential elections. They have also advocated using a Single Transferable Vote (known to them as "Fair Representation Voting") in order to select members to a multi-member body like the US House of Representatives.

Video on the Single Transferable Vote:

 
I really like the idea of ranked choice voting.

I don't favor going to a proportional voting system though, or a system where multiple candidates are elected in a single district vote. A proportional system as far as I can see would actually create less choice than we have now because you'd be voting predominantly for party rather than individual candidates. Susan Collins is very different than Ted Cruz who is very different than Mitch Mcconnell and. Elizabeth Warren is very different than Joe Manchin who is very different than Tom Carper. I like the variety moreso than voting Republican or Democrat, or maybe two or three other parties, but having less control over the individual representative.
 
The Single Transferable Vote doesn't require you to have political parties in order for it to be proportional as independents can and often do get elected as is the case in Ireland. The Single Transferable Vote is similar to Instant Runoff Voting in that you rank the candidates and the votes from losers are transferred, only in STV the surplus votes from the winners are also transferred to make the results more proportional.
 
Roycarn said:
The Single Transferable Vote doesn't require you to have political parties in order for it to be proportional as independents can and often do get elected as is the case in Ireland. The Single Transferable Vote is similar to Instant Runoff Voting in that you rank the candidates and the votes from losers are transferred, only in STV the surplus votes from the winners are also transferred to make the results more proportional.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was really addressing Party List Proportional Representation there.

I still prefer single candidate per district elections than multi-candidate STV, although I like Ranked Choice in those elections better than FPTP.
 
Could you explain why you prefer a single-winner RCV to a more proportional STV? I'm asking because the possibility of gerrymandering is greater with a single-winner district as opposed to a multi-member one,. Under STV as far as I'm aware, citizens who were in the minority would still have access to local representation that they might not have otherwise under a single winner system.
 
I get the feeling that my second choice would be one of those situations where I don't really like the guy, but he sucks less the others, so sure I guess he will do as a second choice kind of things.
 
We have PR in Sweden. It has just about killed democracy. PR takes away power from the people and gives it to political parties. Actually worse still: small cliques within political parties.
 
Sweden said:
We have PR in Sweden. It has just about killed democracy. PR takes away power from the people and gives it to political parties. Actually worse still: small cliques within political parties.
Click to expand...

Under STV, you could still vote for independents and have them be elected as is the case in Ireland.
 
Roycarn said:
Decades have passed in the US since a third party has been represented in Congress (aside from independents). Even outside the context of third parties, many complain about the lack of proportionality in the United States' elected bodies.

The non-partisan voting reform group FairVote was established initially in 1992 as the Citizens for Proportional Representation. Since then, they have continued to advocate for voting reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting for single-winner elections as well as the national popular vote for presidential elections. They have also advocated using a Single Transferable Vote (known to them as "Fair Representation Voting") in order to select members to a multi-member body like the US House of Representatives.

Video on the Single Transferable Vote:

Click to expand...


Absolutely not. That is one of the main problems with European political systems. Parliamentary structure reduces the separation of powers. It needn't be as bad as in Germany, where the government consists of the leaders of the majority parties of the Legislative. This can be ameliorated to a point as the French do by giving a directly elected President large powers over the government elected by parliament. The British take another path.

But, all the political science stuff aside, I don't really know that the presidential system practiced by the US is so bad it needs structural change. It was not a political structure issue that gave us Obama and Trump.

As to the issue of only two parties being represented un congress, I am also not sure, what problem it is that people think there might be. I have compared the breadth of opinions on a number of policies you find within the two main parties of the US and Germany. What one finds is that the differences are larger within the American parties by far than in Germany. The breath of competing ideas within the Republicans or the Democrats is wider than those of the Christian Union, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Free Democrats together. What is more, the process of selecting the policy mix of candidates is far more open to public scrutiny and far more influenced by the public.
 
First off, thanks for your thoughtful response. I disagree with the notion that one needs to have a parliamentary system with no checks and balances in order to have proportional representation; most of South America have proportional representation while remaining presidential systems. France's presidency is also usually regarded as being weaker than its counterparts in full presidential systems.

I'm not familiar with differences in political opinion in Germany, but as far as primaries are concerned, yes, in general the process is more open than in other countries. Not all proportional systems result in a departure of the basic two-party system (Malta is one example). Nor do all proportional representation systems lead to a loss of openness or public scrutiny.

I don't see the fundamental problem as there being only two parties (in contrast to what I alluded to in my original post), but I do see it as a problem that seats aren't awarded proportionally to the votes cast, and that minority voters in single member districts don't have access to a locally based representative who's more amenable to their disposition (a problem which would matter less if our politics weren't as heterogeneous).
 
joG said:
Absolutely not. That is one of the main problems with European political systems. Parliamentary structure reduces the separation of powers. It needn't be as bad as in Germany, where the government consists of the leaders of the majority parties of the Legislative. This can be ameliorated to a point as the French do by giving a directly elected President large powers over the government elected by parliament. The British take another path.

But, all the political science stuff aside, I don't really know that the presidential system practiced by the US is so bad it needs structural change. It was not a political structure issue that gave us Obama and Trump.

As to the issue of only two parties being represented un congress, I am also not sure, what problem it is that people think there might be. I have compared the breadth of opinions on a number of policies you find within the two main parties of the US and Germany. What one finds is that the differences are larger within the American parties by far than in Germany. The breath of competing ideas within the Republicans or the Democrats is wider than those of the Christian Union, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Free Democrats together. What is more, the process of selecting the policy mix of candidates is far more open to public scrutiny and far more influenced by the public.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you are arguing. However, the breath of competing ideas is greater between the two parties in the United States, because many of the "ideas" are so pie in the sky unrealistic, that they have no chance of ever being policy. Point being, that just because we have greater extremism in our two parties is not exactly a good thing.
 
The biggest obstacle that third parties have in the United States is that both the Green Party and Libertarian Party are a joke. They are not serious parties, with serious people, and serious ideas. This is evidenced how they just show up for presidential elections and little else. If they want to be taken seriously and actually build a real political movement, they need to start at the state and local level. There needs to be Green and Libertarian Party mayors, city councils, state legislators, attorney generals, county managers, insurance commissioners and so on. You can't just show up to the Major Leagues and expect to play when you have never even been in batting cage (our current president being the exception of course).

If they built themselves from the ground up like that, then they would actually have to have practical ideas that translate to actually governing which would then allow them to build greater appeal and movements so that they could get elected congress and governorships. They don't win right now because all they ever are is a protest vote at best, and typically just a movement to get the biggest nutters in society.
 
Last edited:
Roycarn said:
Decades have passed in the US since a third party has been represented in Congress (aside from independents). Even outside the context of third parties, many complain about the lack of proportionality in the United States' elected bodies.

The non-partisan voting reform group FairVote was established initially in 1992 as the Citizens for Proportional Representation. Since then, they have continued to advocate for voting reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting for single-winner elections as well as the national popular vote for presidential elections. They have also advocated using a Single Transferable Vote (known to them as "Fair Representation Voting") in order to select members to a multi-member body like the US House of Representatives.

Video on the Single Transferable Vote:

Click to expand...


Huge fan of it. And there are a number of different ways to set this up, including ranking one's vote for a candidate or for a party, or even both like they do in Germany.
 
Roycarn said:
Under STV, you could still vote for independents and have them be elected as is the case in Ireland.
Click to expand...

There is an election in the Netherlands today. No fewer than 23 parties are standing. Something like 12 to 15 will actually win seats. After haggling behind closed doors maybe 5 to 8 of them will form a government. A government that not one person in the whole of Holland will have voted for - and one which will not include the party that is expected to win the most votes. A caricature of democracy. Imo.
 
Sweden said:
There is an election in the Netherlands today. No fewer than 23 parties are standing. Something like 12 to 15 will actually win seats. After haggling behind closed doors maybe 5 to 8 of them will form a government. A government that not one person in the whole of Holland will have voted for - and one which will not include the party that is expected to win the most votes. A caricature of democracy. Imo.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by "not one person in the whole of Holland will have voted for." The voters will have voted for the parties of the coalition with the expectation that a coalition will be formed and that their chosen party may or may not be a part of it. The idea behind proportional representation is that you win a majority in an elected body only if you win a majority of the vote share. How exactly is that a caricature of democracy?
 
Roycarn said:
I don't understand what you mean by "not one person in the whole of Holland will have voted for." The voters will have voted for the parties of the coalition with the expectation that a coalition will be formed and that their chosen party may or may not be a part of it. The idea behind proportional representation is that you win a majority in an elected body only if you win a majority of the vote share. How exactly is that a caricature of democracy?
Click to expand...

It isn't.
 
Roycarn said:
Decades have passed in the US since a third party has been represented in Congress (aside from independents). Even outside the context of third parties, many complain about the lack of proportionality in the United States' elected bodies.

The non-partisan voting reform group FairVote was established initially in 1992 as the Citizens for Proportional Representation. Since then, they have continued to advocate for voting reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting for single-winner elections as well as the national popular vote for presidential elections. They have also advocated using a Single Transferable Vote (known to them as "Fair Representation Voting") in order to select members to a multi-member body like the US House of Representatives.

Video on the Single Transferable Vote:

Click to expand...


I have a better idea. Make an amendment to the Constitution that disallows anyone running for political office of being a part of a party and that all voting ballots just have names and nothing else. No "R" or "D" or "I". Just names and that's it. Politicians should not be advocating for parties. They should be advocating for the US. It will also make it very hard to say "well, their side did/said X and that makes them like Hitler! or "well, that side are racists!" etc etc etc. Can't play the identity politics when there is no identity to point to. Politicians will be forced to either blame individuals or actually talk about the issues. And People will be forced to actually know a bit about their candidate other than "D" or "R".

Also make an amendment that gets rid of superpacs and the idea that a corporation is a person. If people want to support a candidate then they're going to have to spend their own personal money.
 
Roycarn said:
I don't understand what you mean by "not one person in the whole of Holland will have voted for." The voters will have voted for the parties of the coalition with the expectation that a coalition will be formed and that their chosen party may or may not be a part of it. The idea behind proportional representation is that you win a majority in an elected body only if you win a majority of the vote share. How exactly is that a caricature of democracy?
Click to expand...

Say a Dutch elector votes for party A. For all he knows A might go in coalition with C, E, G and I. Or maybe B, D, F and Z. The individual elector has no say in the formation of the new government. It will be stitched up by the party elites out of his sight. You may think that is a democratic process; I do not.

I first saw crazy coalitions formed when I lived in Iceland. A vivid and lasting lesson on how PR poisons democracy.
 
Sweden said:
Say a Dutch elector votes for party A. For all he knows A might go in coalition with C, E, G and I. Or maybe B, D, F and Z. The individual elector has no say in the formation of the new government. It will be stitched up by the party elites out of his sight. You may think that is a democratic process; I do not.

I first saw crazy coalitions formed when I lived in Iceland. A vivid and lasting lesson on how PR poisons democracy.
Click to expand...

This is a problem in every democracy, and one that can only really be resolved by switching to a direct form of democracy. Elites will always have some influence under a representative system.

In your example, the elector's chosen party will receive some representation as he voted for it, but will have to form a coalition with other interests in society if they want to form a government. That's fundamentally more democratic in my view than if that person's chosen party were allowed to govern with only a minority of the vote.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The biggest obstacle that third parties have in the United States is that both the Green Party and Libertarian Party are a joke. They are not serious parties, with serious people, and serious ideas. This is evidenced how they just show up for presidential elections and little else. If they want to be taken seriously and actually build a real political movement, they need to start at the state and local level. There needs to be Green and Libertarian Party mayors, city councils, state legislators, attorney generals, county managers, insurance commissioners and so on. You can't just show up to the Major Leagues and expect to play when you have never even been in batting cage (our current president being the exception of course).

If they built themselves from the ground up like that, then they would actually have to have practical ideas that translate to actually governing which would then allow them to build greater appeal and movements so that they could get elected congress and governorships. They don't win right now because all they ever are is a protest vote at best, and typically just a movement to get the biggest nutters in society.
Click to expand...

It's more than this: it's best to think of the Democratic and Republican parties as coalitions of various interest groups rather than equivalent to parties that exist in PR systems. For example, if you're into green or environmental politics in Germany, you join the Green Party there and vote Green. If you support a center-left welfare state, you vote for the Social-Democrats. If you adhere to either of these fairly distinct political ideologies in the United States and seriously want to see your views implemented, you vote for the Democrats. A PR system encourages parties to form that represent specific interest groups or ideologies, while a first-past-the-post system encourages big tent parties like in the US. Both of these have their pros and cons - parties in a PR system can be extremely provincial, like in Belgium (source: had Belgian poli sci professor), and since they have to form parliamentary coalitions government policy is often a centrist compromise anyway - and proportional representation shouldn't be seen as some awesome solution that will finally allow the unfairly repressed third parties to have a voice.
 
Many Eastern European nations use a proportional or a party list system. It doesn't work very well.
 
MadLib said:
It's more than this: it's best to think of the Democratic and Republican parties as coalitions of various interest groups rather than equivalent to parties that exist in PR systems. For example, if you're into green or environmental politics in Germany, you join the Green Party there and vote Green. If you support a center-left welfare state, you vote for the Social-Democrats. If you adhere to either of these fairly distinct political ideologies in the United States and seriously want to see your views implemented, you vote for the Democrats. A PR system encourages parties to form that represent specific interest groups or ideologies, while a first-past-the-post system encourages big tent parties like in the US. Both of these have their pros and cons - parties in a PR system can be extremely provincial, like in Belgium (source: had Belgian poli sci professor), and since they have to form parliamentary coalitions government policy is often a centrist compromise anyway - and proportional representation shouldn't be seen as some awesome solution that will finally allow the unfairly repressed third parties to have a voice.
Click to expand...

Under a PR system, third parties typically get access to ministerial posts and have a much more direct way of influencing legislation as part of a coalition than under first past the post. Some would argue that it's more democratic than having those interests compete for influence among otherwise moderate politicians.

True, the outcome would likely be much the same as it is now (coalitions at the center), but the system would be fairer to all parties involved.
 
Maybe a ranked voting system would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom