Via RSS
Via Twitter
The problem is that our electoral system is biased towards a two-party system. Plurality voting and single-member districts are as much of a guarantee of bipolarity as you’ll get from an electoral system . . . a national-level fix to national institutions would be rather difficult. However, one of the quirks of our system is that lots of responsibility for national-level institutions is left to the States. In particular, the Constitution in Article 1, sect. 4 says this: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” . . .Read the whole thing.
The principle goal of a state-centric reform movement would be to lower the bar for political parties to enter races. We like to vilify political parties, but they are absolutely necessary to a functioning democracy. No voter has the time or intellect to learn enough about the set of candidates they are expected to vote for each election season; parties provide a handy identifier, greatly reducing the cognitive burden on the voter. The real problem is that we have only two parties, and those parties are extremely broad . . .
A state-level electoral reform movement – focusing only on making the machinery more representative, more democratic (little ‘d’) – would not only appeal to the existing third-parties, but would not necessarily require reform-minded members of the other two parties to abandon their tribal loyalties. Nor should these reforms be limited to Federal offices; they could apply all the way down to city dogcatcher. At its best, such a movement would be a genuinely trans-partisan, Americans-united-together effort to make our government work better.
On the Necessity of a State-Level Electoral Reform Movement
From Miles Townes at The Violence of Nations:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Give a little credit to the guy who's been saying more or less the same thing for more than three years now...
dlw
I'm increasingly of the view. Reforms, like instant-runoff voting, can be implemented on a state-by-state (or even city or county) basis. This allows them to be tried where people are more open to them and allows them to gain a track record that will allow more people to become comfortable with them.
I agree, but we need more than IRV alone. We need to follow the leadership of Rob Richie's Fair Vote and advocate for both smart forms of Proportional Representation and IRV in as many state/local elections as possible...
dlw
Following on DLW, give a little credit to a guy who's been organizing on the state level for four years now for exactly the kinds of reforms we all know are needed. My party has met with some success as well, and we're working through the redistricting process now since it gives an opportunity to highlight the failings of the current and the potential of the future electoral system in New York. If only the Greens and Libertarians, who are well organized here, would take this process seriously.
Good luck Pete!
Any electoral reform that improves the balance between single seat and meaningful multi seat elections is praise-worthy.
You deserve it!
dlw
I'm curious about the push for proportional representation. Both in how big a change is required and whether we want parties to be weaker or stronger. These are main reasons why I favor IRV over proportional representation.
As to the first. Proportional representation needs districts with a fair numbers of representatives (especially if you want to leave room for small parties, a stated goal, for a party that gets 10% vote to get in you need 10 seats in a district). That means it really won't fit with elections to the US senate (and many state systems based on those bodies). Even in the House, small states can't really use it either (they just don't have enough representatives), and large states would need to massively combine districts (or eliminate them all together), something that voters aren't used to and many will feel that it reduces the representation of local interests. I've always felt that PR would just require too much change to the system.
Also, it makes a difference in what you see as the goal. We want to break up the two party system, that's a given. PR would bring in more parties, but it would also strengthen party control over the representatives (since they would, one way or another, have a lot of control over their lists and who gets the seats voters given them). IRV would, IMO, work the other way and weaken parties, allowing more people with views that diverge from the two party mantra (whether they are party members who don't "toe the line" or people from outside the party). I personally I'm not that happy with parties having a lot of control over representatives (allowing them to push politics above national interest)and I think the modern communications age will mean that candidates no longer need parties platforms to define their positions to voters.
DS:As to the first. Proportional representation needs districts with a fair numbers of representatives (especially if you want to leave room for small parties, a stated goal, for a party that gets 10% vote to get in you need 10 seats in a district).
dlw: One doesn't need to use PR with a fair number of seats to make a difference. This is what I contend with my the tri-election triage position that differs from my esteemed fellow election reform advocate Pete Healey. And if one used a 3-seat Largest Remainder Hare election rule, it'd be possible for a candidate with only 10% of the vote to win a seat...
DS:That means it really won't fit with elections to the US senate (and many state systems based on those bodies). Even in the House, small states can't really use it either (they just don't have enough representatives), and large states would need to massively combine districts (or eliminate them all together), something that voters aren't used to and many will feel that it reduces the representation of local interests.
dlw:Most of Fair Vote's advocacy has been for US congressional super districts of 3-5 seats. This can be done for most states without changing the contituent legislator relationship that radically...
DS:I've always felt that PR would just require too much change to the system.
dlw: This is why PR needs to be adapted to the US's system. IMO, We cannot simply import an EU or AU-style system.
dlw
"PR would bring in more parties, but it would also strengthen party control over the representatives"
Not necessarily, STV is a proven form of PR that retains the "voting for the individual" dynamic and in fact, increases grassroots control of political parties (it's essentially IRV with multiple seats). Fairvote has that as a preferred rule, along with Cumulative voting. They seem to be pushing it currently on a city level, whist developing plans for Super districts on a federal level and lower house reforms on a state level. Their piece on California is worth a read imo http://www.fairvote.org/california-a-simulated-attempt-at-super-districts
@TF,
Pete Healey's an advocate for the other type of PR in NY. I share his desire for more intra-party discipline so as to establish party brands and to enable a party fitting his ideology to win seats...
We agree on a good deal, except he wants a lot more seats in super districts and I believe he'd prefer to end the state senate, but I think that might be a secondary goal for him.
dlw
@DLW
Well I wasn't suggesting he was in favor of STV (Though I believe he's not against it) or Cumulative voting, I was simply responding to what I consider a misconception.
I like Pete's PR party actually, and have a lot of overlap with him as well.
Post a Comment