The last thing, however, that I would want to see is more politicians using tax dollars to fund their private pursuits. Most of them do not even know how to spell statesman.
The US does not have enough Congresspeople. Period. Other advanced nations - UK, France, Germany, ... have similar numbers of parliamentariens, while having much smaller populations. The US has had 435 Representatives since the 1910s, when the population was well under a third of what it is now.
Alternatively, legal authority might be given to staff appointed by Representatives.
I would be in favor of more representation if our system were based on representation and not solely on party politics.
Used to be that the issues that were important to the people would get coopted by one party or the other, or at least that is how it seemed when i was much younger. Now it seems as if the party/candidate makes up the issues they wants to divide the people over and yells about it until the elections. The press covers it as if it were a football game, never getting deeply enough into the issues to see if they actually are an issue and presenting both sides as equally untruthful or buys whatever Saint Bullshit is claiming.
Yes, but I think instead of just hitting reset, we toss out the old machine and bring in new one.
Basically my fantasy (admitting it is never going to happen) would be to retain the CotUS but throw out all the rules of the House and the Senate and start fresh from the CotUS. And while fantasizing, this should also be done in a way to eliminate the concept of parties in operation. People would still be members of parties, but the recognition of a party —imbuing it with legitimacy and power— should be consciously avoided in the new rules.
People would still be members of parties, but the recognition of a party —imbuing it with legitimacy and power— should be consciously avoided in the new rules.
Agreed. Parties should not control the on-ramps to who can even get their foot in the door or the access to issues.
How can making the problem bigger be a solution? This is just another thinly disguised attempt to give even more political influence to the big states. Creating more seats will favor the larger states more than the smaller states. We all understand that no matter how states are gerrymandered, California will have a much, much larger political representation than the majority of states. California Democrats overwhelm the influence of Minnesota Democrats. Increasing the size of the House of Representatives will only make that issue worse.
The entire 15 minute video failed to mention that districts are apportioned based on population numbers. So, logically, to end gerrymandering it becomes necessary to draw districts in a manner that attempts to equalize population density. Democrats would scream bloody murder because that would splinter city populations into multiple districts in an attempt to equalize population density.
If these activists were really, truly interested in ending the power of political parties to divide the country then they would demand reforms for primary elections. Allow all voters to participate in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Eliminate the partisan barrier that allows parties to disenfranchise voters and reap the benefits of gerrymandering. Or, better yet, eliminate primary elections altogether.
This is just another thinly disguised attempt to give even more political influence to the big states.
Within the House, bigger states are supposed to have more influence. The balance for that is that influence in the Senate is evenly distributed. There, small states have a level of influence far beyond what their population would imply. In the Senate, it is very easy for a minority to dictate outcomes.
Within the House, bigger states are supposed to have more influence. The balance for that is that influence in the Senate is evenly distributed. There, small states have a level of influence far beyond what their population would imply. In the Senate, it is very easy for a minority to dictate outcomes.
Increasing the number of Representatives is a deliberate effort to give the bigger states even more influence. Doubling the number of Representatives would increase California's number from 52 to 104. The states with one Representative (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware) would have two. That's not an attempt to address gerrymandering; that's a plan to deliberately make the problem worse.
A better approach would be to draw the district maps by trying to equalize population density. But the partisan objection to that seems rather obvious.
that's a plan to deliberately make the problem worse
This is where you’re just fundamentally wrong. It’s not a problem. It’s a feature. It is the intended outcome. If you want minority control, look to the Senate.
Expanding the House has been overdue for decades. Each member currently represents - on average - over 700,000 people, making them less and less accountable to communities.
Keep in mind that representatives tend to vote as a unified block that typically follows the party position established by the leaders. They do NOT normally represent their constituents; they typically represent their party.
Adding more bodies is not going to fix the hyper-partisan, irrational, self-centered, power-based dynamic of our current system.
As long as our system is based on which party has the most representatives (i.e. gains the ability to essentially stifle/relegate the minority) we will see the dynamic of representatives joining in unison for the party itself. We will continue to see one party as a unit fighting the other party as a unit and all the irrational, wasteful nonsense that results from that.
You repeating what you wrote is not helping me to understand your point. I do not see it. Without a viable third party, how does proportional voting help break the two-party dynamic?
Proportional voting more accurately represents the people. But we still have the two-party dynamic (which is the problem I was talking about).
There will be parties no matter what. Right now the USA is dominated by Ds and Rs. Third and fourth parties exist but none of them catch on. So the ability to elect someone other than a D or R exists today but is extremely difficult and has no staying power (ask the Libertarians how their more than 50 years of trying has panned out).
So we somehow need to get past this and grow third-party candidates who have a realistic shot at getting elected.
Without that, the big tents will continue to exist in Washington as always: the Ds and the Rs. And without a critical mass, no coalitions will form that can take on these two superpowers.
What I am saying is that I do favor proportional voting (I have been a proponent of this for decades). But I promote it because it is a more accurate way to represent the people, not because it will somehow bring about at least one more viable party.
The problem of bringing forth a viable party remains. To get past it, the party needs recognition (this is marketing and it takes time), funding (easier said than done compared to the budgets of the competition), and especially charismatic candidates that would encourage people to vote for them in spite of the fact that many would need to vote outside of their comfort zone (their party, or even an established party).
This is a very difficult thing to pull off.
Now, if you come back and claim that proportional voting will encourage people to vote for people from a whole variety of parties, or even candidates who are unaffiliated, I will point out that voters have always had that option. They do not go that route.
Right now the USA is dominated by Ds and Rs. Third and fourth parties exist but none of them catch on.
Exactly. That's the consequence of "first past the post". A vote for a third party is "wasted".
In proportional, that vote is "useful", because it puts delegates in Parliament. Some EU countries haven't had a "majority government" in decades. Always coalitions... with each coalition partner getting part of its electoral program.
The vote for someone other than a D or R has to take place to get that person into the House to even have the opportunity for a coalition.
If a D or an R is voted in, then they will be assimilated into the super powers and the fact that they were elected with a proportional system is not going to make a difference.
We need to find a way for people other than Ds and Rs to get elected in numbers that can make a difference.
Nevermind, Bob, you are focused on a point that I have stated that I fully agree (proportional is substantially better than winner takes all) and are clearly not going to comment on my question of how proportional voting would enable third parties and coalitions.
"Enabling third-parties" is intrinsic to proportional because all votes become "useful" - no votes are "wasted" as are (for example) votes for third-party "Socialists" in America's "first past the post". Such candidates have zero chance of getting elected.
Fringe candidates have a real possibility of getting elected, in proportional. The result is usually several / many parties actuallygetting seats in Parliament, but none getting a majority. So coalitions are necessary and habitual.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Proportional is good.
The last thing, however, that I would want to see is more politicians using tax dollars to fund their private pursuits. Most of them do not even know how to spell statesman.
How bout Expanding?
I am against it. Adding in more politicians is not going to make anything better.
I meant spelling "expanding"... Sorry. Dry humor doesn't do digital well.
The US does not have enough Congresspeople. Period. Other advanced nations - UK, France, Germany, ... have similar numbers of parliamentariens, while having much smaller populations. The US has had 435 Representatives since the 1910s, when the population was well under a third of what it is now.
Alternatively, legal authority might be given to staff appointed by Representatives.
I know that. But the problem is a shit system. Adding in more politicians is not going to improve it.
I would be in favor of more representation if our system were based on representation and not solely on party politics.
Used to be that the issues that were important to the people would get coopted by one party or the other, or at least that is how it seemed when i was much younger. Now it seems as if the party/candidate makes up the issues they wants to divide the people over and yells about it until the elections. The press covers it as if it were a football game, never getting deeply enough into the issues to see if they actually are an issue and presenting both sides as equally untruthful or buys whatever Saint Bullshit is claiming.
It is time to hit the reset button.
Yes, but I think instead of just hitting reset, we toss out the old machine and bring in new one.
Basically my fantasy (admitting it is never going to happen) would be to retain the CotUS but throw out all the rules of the House and the Senate and start fresh from the CotUS. And while fantasizing, this should also be done in a way to eliminate the concept of parties in operation. People would still be members of parties, but the recognition of a party —imbuing it with legitimacy and power— should be consciously avoided in the new rules.
Agreed. Parties should not control the on-ramps to who can even get their foot in the door or the access to issues.
How can making the problem bigger be a solution? This is just another thinly disguised attempt to give even more political influence to the big states. Creating more seats will favor the larger states more than the smaller states. We all understand that no matter how states are gerrymandered, California will have a much, much larger political representation than the majority of states. California Democrats overwhelm the influence of Minnesota Democrats. Increasing the size of the House of Representatives will only make that issue worse.
The entire 15 minute video failed to mention that districts are apportioned based on population numbers. So, logically, to end gerrymandering it becomes necessary to draw districts in a manner that attempts to equalize population density. Democrats would scream bloody murder because that would splinter city populations into multiple districts in an attempt to equalize population density.
If these activists were really, truly interested in ending the power of political parties to divide the country then they would demand reforms for primary elections. Allow all voters to participate in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Eliminate the partisan barrier that allows parties to disenfranchise voters and reap the benefits of gerrymandering. Or, better yet, eliminate primary elections altogether.
Within the House, bigger states are supposed to have more influence. The balance for that is that influence in the Senate is evenly distributed. There, small states have a level of influence far beyond what their population would imply. In the Senate, it is very easy for a minority to dictate outcomes.
Indeed.
Increasing the number of Representatives is a deliberate effort to give the bigger states even more influence. Doubling the number of Representatives would increase California's number from 52 to 104. The states with one Representative (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware) would have two. That's not an attempt to address gerrymandering; that's a plan to deliberately make the problem worse.
A better approach would be to draw the district maps by trying to equalize population density. But the partisan objection to that seems rather obvious.
This is where you’re just fundamentally wrong. It’s not a problem. It’s a feature. It is the intended outcome. If you want minority control, look to the Senate.
Expanding the House has been overdue for decades. Each member currently represents - on average - over 700,000 people, making them less and less accountable to communities.
I hate having more politicians but Houde districts are too large for Representative to handle
Keep in mind that representatives tend to vote as a unified block that typically follows the party position established by the leaders. They do NOT normally represent their constituents; they typically represent their party.
Adding more bodies is not going to fix the hyper-partisan, irrational, self-centered, power-based dynamic of our current system.
As long as our system is based on which party has the most representatives (i.e. gains the ability to essentially stifle/relegate the minority) we will see the dynamic of representatives joining in unison for the party itself. We will continue to see one party as a unit fighting the other party as a unit and all the irrational, wasteful nonsense that results from that.
Proportional voting often results in no party getting a majority. Hence coalition. Hence compromise. It's better.
That would be true if we had a viable third party. I do not see the US electorate changing simply because of smaller districts.
I would be quite thrilled if that were to happen though.
I suggested proportional voting. It's good for smaller parties. And leads to coalitions.
You repeating what you wrote is not helping me to understand your point. I do not see it. Without a viable third party, how does proportional voting help break the two-party dynamic?
Proportional voting more accurately represents the people. But we still have the two-party dynamic (which is the problem I was talking about).
Proportional voting produces third parties... and fourth parties... and sometimes more.
Small voting blocs have no reason to join a "big tent". They're better off on their own, picking up a few seats that give them real negotiating power.
And that is what I have been asking you to explain. How does proportional voting produce third parties?
Small voting blocs have no reason to join a "big tent". They're better off on their own, picking up a few seats that give them real negotiating power.
There will be parties no matter what. Right now the USA is dominated by Ds and Rs. Third and fourth parties exist but none of them catch on. So the ability to elect someone other than a D or R exists today but is extremely difficult and has no staying power (ask the Libertarians how their more than 50 years of trying has panned out).
So we somehow need to get past this and grow third-party candidates who have a realistic shot at getting elected.
Without that, the big tents will continue to exist in Washington as always: the Ds and the Rs. And without a critical mass, no coalitions will form that can take on these two superpowers.
What I am saying is that I do favor proportional voting (I have been a proponent of this for decades). But I promote it because it is a more accurate way to represent the people, not because it will somehow bring about at least one more viable party.
The problem of bringing forth a viable party remains. To get past it, the party needs recognition (this is marketing and it takes time), funding (easier said than done compared to the budgets of the competition), and especially charismatic candidates that would encourage people to vote for them in spite of the fact that many would need to vote outside of their comfort zone (their party, or even an established party).
This is a very difficult thing to pull off.
Now, if you come back and claim that proportional voting will encourage people to vote for people from a whole variety of parties, or even candidates who are unaffiliated, I will point out that voters have always had that option. They do not go that route.
Exactly. That's the consequence of "first past the post". A vote for a third party is "wasted".
In proportional, that vote is "useful", because it puts delegates in Parliament. Some EU countries haven't had a "majority government" in decades. Always coalitions... with each coalition partner getting part of its electoral program.
The vote for someone other than a D or R has to take place to get that person into the House to even have the opportunity for a coalition.
If a D or an R is voted in, then they will be assimilated into the super powers and the fact that they were elected with a proportional system is not going to make a difference.
We need to find a way for people other than Ds and Rs to get elected in numbers that can make a difference.
Yes. That's my point. "First past the post" is inferior to "proportional".
Nevermind, Bob, you are focused on a point that I have stated that I fully agree (proportional is substantially better than winner takes all) and are clearly not going to comment on my question of how proportional voting would enable third parties and coalitions.
I'm trying to answer.
"Enabling third-parties" is intrinsic to proportional because all votes become "useful" - no votes are "wasted" as are (for example) votes for third-party "Socialists" in America's "first past the post". Such candidates have zero chance of getting elected.
Fringe candidates have a real possibility of getting elected, in proportional. The result is usually several / many parties actually getting seats in Parliament, but none getting a majority. So coalitions are necessary and habitual.