What do you think of Proportional Representation in your state legislature?
I've long thought that having bicameral state legislatures as they currently are is a waste of resources. One house duplicates the other. I'm also dissatisfied with the two political parties that currently dominate US politics at the state and federal level, but don't see any way to open up the system under our current system. Not even Ross Perot could do it! On the other hand, I like the idea of having a representative that comes from my area to whom I can go when I have a problem. So how about reforming the system this way: Keep the State Senate as it is, with senators elected from districts. This would be a more conservative body, since you would need a majority of votes maybe even 50%+1 in your district to win a seat. Change the State House to a system of proportional representation: if your party wins 10% of the votes, you get 10% of the seats. This opens the process up to a wider range of ideas and gives third parties a chance to get into the legislature. Thoughts?
Why doesn’t the USA just use proportional representation?
It sure can. As they say there is so many ways this cat can be skined. Traditionally it wasn't the way elections were conducted in US on any level of the government and switching from one system should not be done for the sake of trying something new.Proportional representation has its own pros and cons. It is not a magic bullet. Just like term limits, it solves some problems, but create some others. Study experience of contries who does use proportional representation. They have their own set of problems. Starting from needs to establish minimum threshold (at for example 5%, what kind if democracy is that?) to other complexities involved in process of voting on party lists.Mind, that exact mechanics of voting is not major determinant of democracy. Other, and arguably more important, attributes are:Limits on government powers, there are certain things a government cannot do to people no mater how popular these government actions would be.Separation of powers. Horizontal: law making vs. execution vs. adjudication. Vertical: independence and autonomy of local governments.
What if the United States had proportional representation instead of a winner take all system?
The Economist did a project on this, when they figured out what the House of Representatives would look like today if a proportional representation system were used. The parties they used in the simulation were based on polling, summing up the number of votes for five political parties represented by the candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. The political split of the House looks like this:218 seats are needed for control of the House. Most likely outcome is a coalition between the Social Democrats (Bernie supporters) and the Liberals (Hillary supporters) with a fairly comfortable 19-seat majority. I’d expect the American Prime Minister right now to be either Hillary Clinton or possible, if Social Democrat MPs strongly opposed the idea of Prime Minister Clinton, than a compromise candidate acceptable to both parties in the coalition. Elizabeth Warren is a possibility, although there could be many other candidates.EDIT: For those of you unaware, in a proportional representation system, voters vote for a party, not for an individual candidate. A party gets a certain number of seats based on the number of votes they get, and those seats are distributed to that party’s politicians based on a list the party provides before the election. If a party does well, most of the candidates on their list might gain seats. If they do badly, maybe only the party’s leader and a few others are elected. For this reason, a party’s most important (such as the party’s leader) and intelligent figures are usually put near the top of the list.EDIT: 3,000 upvotes! This is far more than I’ve ever gotten from all 24 of my previous answers combined, and I’m very pleased and surprised that people enjoy my answer.
What would be the effect on U.S. politics if proportional representation were used to elect the U.S. Congress?
Well, that would be the end of the two party system in the US. What you'd get are more extreme, often one-issue parties in both chambers of Congress. The Republicans and the Democrats would still be the main parties of government, though I suspect that the Republicans would have more breakaway groups. There would probably be a number of smaller parties with wacky ideas that had a representative or two. And you'd have a small socialist and a small libertarian contingent. But generally, what you'd see is more extreme politics across the board. There's a reason that France and Italy still have honest-to-God Communists in their legislatures.
The Original House of representatives was designed with how many seats?/?
The 1st Congress had 65 representatives, each representing up to 30,000 (see below). U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." 2010 population: 308,745,538 / 435 representatives = 709,760 per representative, however each state still gets at least one representative.
Are there any good arguments today in support of dividing congress into two bodies the Senate and House of rep?
Same as their was hundreds of years ago. More representation in the house for larger states pop., while equal rep. in the Senate so that smaller states are just as equally represented as the Senate. You see, before the Great Compromise, two plans were considered: The Virginian plan, which had two houses based off of population, thus helping larger states, and the new jersey plan, which had a house with two representatives each, thus being equal between all states, regardless of population. What we have now is the Great Compromise, which is a good mix of the two, to satisfy large states and small states at the same time. Because laws must be passed through both houses, it makes it pretty equal.
Why is redistricting preferred over proportional representation as a solution to gerrymandering in the U.S.?
Redistricting to get better (fairer) districts is less drastic than(a) giving up having individual congressional districts, and(b) voting for parties instead of individual representatives.Unless the U.S. Constitution is amended, states will still be given proportional numbers of representatives. So imagine states didn’t have districts, but split up their house seats depending by how many votes each party gets. Instead of listing an individual on the ballot, there would be parties. It makes no difference for states with 1 representative. Small states with 2 representatives would be forever split split 50/50. States with 3 would be split 2/1, etc. Big States may also only change one or two seats each election.But overall, proportional representation closely resembles perfect gerrymandering, in that it virtually puts all the third parties and odd votes into one “district”. Does this picture help?The point is, maybe there is one seat per state that is up for grabs. So, it would be fairly stable. But no fun, no plans to “Flip the House” in the next election.
Could the US change to mixed member proportional voting for the Congress?
It would take a Constitutional amendment, and an explanation of how exactly the change would work. Each country that uses it seems to have their own variation. Some candidates are elected to fixed districts or constituencies. Others are elected proportionally by party vote. Optimistic people could say it combines the good of local representation with the good of proportional representation according to party support. There are different rules on how to balance the overal legislature, given the two ways people can be elected.“In each constituency, the representative is chosen using a single winner method, typically first-past-the-post (that is, the candidate with the most votes, by plurality, wins).Most systems used closed party lists to elect the non-constituency MPs (also called list MPs). Depending on the jurisdiction, candidates may stand for both a constituency and on a party list (referred to in New Zealand as dual candidacy), or may be restricted to contend either for a constituency or for a party list, but not both. If a candidate is on the party list, but wins a constituency seat, they do not receive two seats; they are instead crossed off the party list and replaced with the next candidate down.”“For example, in New Zealand's 2008 General Election the Māori Party won 2.4% of the Party Vote, which would entitle them to 3 seats in the House, but won 5 constituency seats, leaving an overhang of 2 seats, which resulted in a 122-member house.”“In most German states, and in the federal Bundestag since 2013, the other parties receive extra seats ("balance seats") to create full proportionality. For example, the provincial parliament (Landtag) of North Rhine Westphalia has, instead of the usual 50% compensatory seats, only 29% unless more are needed to balance overhangs.”Mixed-member proportional representation - WikipediaSo, it would not get rid of gerrymandering, there would still be districts. But some extra “at large” seats would probably be given to third parties so they can have proportional representation without winning any district elections. On the other hand, maybe they could win extra seats, like the Maori Party of New Zealand. I don’t think current politicians would be super afraid of loosing their seats. But they may like the certainty of staying with the known system. And average voters may think it is confusing, not an obviously better system.