Thoughts on Voting Reform - Part I
As we all know, many people vote D or R not because they support the party, but because they dislike the alternative. They have swallowed the argument that voting for a minor party or independent candidate is a vote for the other side. Most times this is manifested as a Green Party vote over a Democratic Party vote or as a Libertarian or Constitution Party vote over a Republican vote.
Of course, we know that minor parties and independent candidates don't get a fair shake due to our system. Here are some possible ways to make our government more responsive and get more people involved.
Organizational reform:
First, our House is divided up into discrete districts which can and are drawn in order to keep a particular party in power. In these so called "safe districts" the incumbent need not be responsive to his constituents because he knows he will win the next election. Due to the two-party system, he can be assured no matter how bad he gets his major party opponent will not win as the cards (voters) are stacked in his favor. His voters may not think he's a good congressman, but they will certainly not vote for the alternative(s). An attempt to "primary" the congressman is looked down upon as rocking the boat and increases the chances that another candidate will win due to the loss of incumbency advantage. Because of the partisanship of the district, keeping power is job one.
To combat this we can:
1) Make all house seats at-large and implement party-list voting
I believe this can be done at the state level without constitutional amendment. Each state can elect it's congressmen at large by a party-list vote. If the vote was 50% D, 40% R, 5% L, 3% G, 2% C, then congressmen would be apportioned as such.
Pro:
* Every vote counts
* The "spoiler effect" is eliminated
Con:
* The party picks the candidates which makes it hard for legislatures to vote against the party line
* In states with only a few representatives, minor parties would still be excluded
* Hard for independents to get elected
2) Create a national at-large district and implement party-list voting
That is, everyone votes for all 435 representatives in a party-list voting system as in 1)
Pro:
* Same as in 1)
* Increased chances for minor party election
Con:
* Requires a constitutional amendment
* No "local" representatives
I'll be back later with my ideas on Senate reorganization.
- stinerman's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
If you are going to go wild there are other options
Try #2. The website ate my last reply.
I prefer to vote for individuals rather than parties. Unless my understanding of party lists is wrong, wouldn't the party get to decide who got elected based on the number of candidates they won?
A hybrid would be to let states make multi-candidate districts. Say, Los Angeles County has 8 (or however many are appropriate) winning candidates. Everybody get a vote and the top 8 vote getters are elected.
State (district) parties would decide how many 'winners' to allow in their primaries. 3rd parties would tend to concentrate on one candidate while the larger ones would spread themselves thinner.
Party list voting is where
Party list voting is where you vote for the party and they decide who takes the seats.
I share your aversion to voting for a party, but I think it is the best way to represent the political goals of the country.
The "hybrid" system you mention is 1). For example, California has 52 representatives, so there are 52 at large representatives. Again, the problem with this is if you let people vote for 52 different candidates, California would most likely have 52 Democrats representing them. The idea is to have representation proportional to party support.
As to your idea on state parties and "winners", I'm not sure how you'd ballot that. How would one vote for the 8? Do you get 8 votes or do you get one vote and the top 8 win?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Doesn't have to be at the state level
The state could simply push it down to the country level. You wouldn't have 52 different candidates. If you were in Los Angeles County, you'd have like 12 or some number. You wouldn't get a say in the Sacramento area vote.
It would create a more proportional vote. If everyone had 1 vote and the ballot had 12 Democratic candidates, 12 Republicans, 1 Green (the greens only put the top vote getter in because they know their support is pretty low) and 1 libertarian. There is a pretty good chance that the Libertarian and Green would make the top 12. While the Republicans and Democratic candidates would end up splitting the ideological vote.
Let the individual parties decide how to vote who will represent them. I'd lean towards 1 vote and the top 8 win. (That's in the Primaries). Same thing in the General. But you could give people 4 votes for 8 candidates or some such. People already do stuff like this in some city council votes.
Of course all of this may run into massive equal representation issues (as could Party List voting).
County level
If you push it farther than the state level then you remove the ability for small areas to have more than 1 representative. As you know, areas as large as Wyoming and Alaska only have 1 representative. Under your plan, only large states would be able to use this method to its full potential.
Certainly, I would agree that individual parties can do whatever they want in primaries. I'm libertarian enough that I think primaries should be private affairs without government influence. I don't have a problem with the government running the primaries so long as each party pays the government for the cost of holding such an election.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Leaving it to the states on the scope
I'm from California, so it works for me! ;-)
States with fewer reps than counties could combine multiple counties into 1 district. You would still have the same problems in states with only 1 or 2 reps, but as you mentioned, a constitutional amendment would be needed to mingle state representatives and that just isn't going to happen.
All the problems you discussed could be handled via statute if people chose to enact them. Public financing of campaigns etc.
Interesting diary -
I'm not sure I 100% agree, though, that our system is responsible for creating a two-party lock on the government. That IS true to an extent, but even in countries with multi-party systems, they tend to settle into two coalitions. I haven't done a study on this, but I'd be willing to guess that coalition voting patterns are roughly similar to two-party voting systems, in that they tend to vote alongside the rest of their blocs, but they occasionally drift on individual issues (much like libertarian Republicans or moderate Republicans will tend to vote like Republicans, but may drift on individual issues).
It seems like the biggest drawback to a two-party system is that you have a lot more trouble getting support if your voting record doesn't fit the party profile, whereas a multiparty system would allow individual candidates more flexibility. Given the choice between two parties and a two multiparty blocs, I'd definitely pick the latter. It seems like they end up embracing more ideological diversity and forcing representatives to learn to make compromises, rather than praying for that 51% majority in Congress every year.
I don't like the idea of making all House seats at-large, though. There is something to be said for getting a good geographic sample to represent your state's interest.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce