|
In this thread, let's talk about proportional representation, why it's superior to the alternative, and the ways it could be achieved in the USA. Also, we can also talk about various other types of electoral reform, like how to fix gerrymandering, what is "fair redistricting", and so on. Why do we need electoral reform? Basically, there's a big problem with the USA's "operating system". The First Past the Post system was essentially something the founders copied from the existing English model, and it virtually guarantees that a two party system evolves and that whoever we pick to represent us -- be that the President, Congress or local representatives -- is the choice that the fewest people actually like. It encourages strategic voting, to deny other people their candidate, and for people to choose "the lesser of two evils" rather than going with what they truly believe. For a great explanation of what this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo (Actually CGP Grey's videos on this subject are all really interesting and worth a watch) Political scientists and mathematicians have gotten together and devised a number of algorithms that fix this problem. So far, the best solution, invented in the mid 19th century, and put into place in many European parliaments, is proportional representation. This is something we desperately need here in the USA; we can't keep running a 21st century society on an outdated operating system. What is Proportional Representation? I'll let this political scientist explain: quote:What is "proportional representation" and why do we need this reform? Is there any organization that is supporting this? Yes! Currently Fairvote.org is the leader in promoting this reform. There's a lot of other helpful and enlightening articles on the site that go into depth explaining how proportional representation works, and how it could be implemented. Problems There's a few problems that I'd like to throw open the floor to discuss:
News I was really excited when the ballot initiative in Maine to try to enact proportional representation passed. However, there's been an unfortunate, though not unpredictable, setback: http://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional/ quote:Maine’s highest court rules ranked-choice voting is unconstitutional ---------------------------- I am by no means an expert on political science, or voting systems, just someone who's interested in this subject and wants to discuss and see what other people think about it! Let's talk about this effort. Is it a pie-in-the-sky dream that will never happen? What do you think? 
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Comedy answer: I definitely think that the big blue wave that may or may not appear in 2018 and 2020 will be helpful to steering the country in a much better direction. That being said, though, do you think the Democrats would be "okay" with instituting proportional representation once in power? I mean, there's no real alternative but to go with that, of course, but I'm just wondering, like, what sort of arguments we could put forth to convince Democrats on the fence that a multi-winner / proportional system would be in their favor? Also, how would we explain it to the average voter?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Would more extensive reforms than PR and removing FPTP be fine for this thread? Because I have a whole slate of ideas on how to fix elections, including some out there ideas.  I mean... as long as it's not, like, "Full communism now". Which, I mean, is obvious, but not real helpful!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
That's a really great point that you've brought up there, and was something I wondered along those lines as well -- would a PR Congress with ruling coalitions be, in the end, all that different from "Big Tent" party politics? Democrats and Republicans encompass a whole huge wide range of people all along the political spectrum, from left to right and authoritarian to libertarian (though probably no authoritarian leftists!) Just like coalition governments, even if the Democrats or Republicans win the House and Senate, they end up having to do plenty of horse-trading within the party to govern -- just look at the existence of the various caucuses like the Freedom Caucus or the Tea Party. I'm not sure about this myself! On another note, I read this interesting Daily Kos article. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/8/31/1416318/-What-if-the-US-had-a-parliament-with-proportional-representation It gives some breakdowns on a hypothetical what-if scenario. Pretty interesting stuff! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Heres my wide ranging slate of reforms which range from realistic to fantastical. And i would appreciate explanations for why my more radical reforms are actually bad ideas. I think I'd be down for everything you posted except for the 16 year old voting and the none of the above thing. Our brains -- our logic centers -- are not even fully developed until around 25 or so, so a 16 year old voting would just be getting a completely uninformed vote. Of course, even with adult brains, you get tons of stupid people wasting their votes with throwaway votes, so I guess it wouldn't change things significantly. California already has a couple of these too, like mail-in ballots, and being able to drop off mail in ballots at polling places on the day of. Mail-in ballots should just be standard everywhere. I can't remember the last time I actually voted in an in-person polling place. ShadowHawk posted:These sort of incentives completely change under PR systems. Winning the a gerrymandered primary election no longer becomes the most important thing for securing a seat. Incidentally, this brings up the issue of gerrymandering, which is a separate one from PR. It's also a worthy electoral reform goal and there's a lot of ways to handle redistricting that we can discuss too!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:it might not be ethical to let some populations (eg: rural poor) vote. they're addled by opiates and failing schools, unable to give informed consent. we may need to move to a more parlimentary type system where you vote in a PM whose party elects other people who then go make decisions for the poors  Insanely classist tirades aside, so, actually the urban-rural divide is really kind of a myth. Regions matter more -- certain regions whether they be urban and rich or rural and poor tend to vote reliably for one side or another. Proportional representation would more fairly represent everyone, the true diversity of a country, without the need to resort to something as terrifying as mass disenfranchisement based on one's geographic location.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Clochette posted:Pretty sure they were mocking your opposition to letting 16+ year olds vote due to their brains not being properly functioning yet. I don't see how that's a fair comparison. I mean, statutory rape laws exist because teenage children can't consent or make decisions informed at adult levels. 16 year old children can't legally serve on juries, or in the army, or work full-time. Voting should work the same way. It's that or lower the age of majority for everything to 16. 16 year olds should absolutely get the chance to participate in government in other ways, like through internships at the local level, volunteering, student government, and so on, but I am not sold on voting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 21:51
|
|