Do you support "proportional representation" vs winner-take-all?

[RiverStone]

I know we are stuck in 2-party rule, and this post is not advocating a 3rd party above the Dems (I'd still vote Dem); but would not a more accurate reflection of We The People be a system that allows (for example): if 15% of the country voted for a Green Party candidate, than on a federal level there would be 15% representation reflected in the House.

I appreciate there has to be a threshold, as you can't have 1% of 20 different factions - but would this be a step closer to true democracy?

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[hifiguy]

1. I do.

And I support instant runoff voting as well.

[Angry Dragon]

5. +1000

[xchrom]

2. ...

:popcorn:

[bemildred]

3. Sounds like a parliamentary system.

Yes, that might be an improvement.

[Owlet]

14. Yes, it does..

..and it would.

Be an improvement.

[Rex]

4. I personally like the idea of direct democracy.

Wouldn't work in America, but like the idea.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. True democracy is 1 person 1 vote on everything...

It can work in really small systems with a relatively few people. Tyranny of the majority is the flaw in true democracy where minorities and individuals can suffer.

Proportional representation is a good system, but no closer to a true democracy than our winner take all system. The problem with these systems is often called a tyranny of the minority. Large parties often must make a coalition with smaller parties, and these small parties make demands that are not necessarily good for the people. In order to gain power, they must be catered to.

Our winner take all system works because of Constitutional protection of individuals and, to a lesser extent, minorities who must fight for recognition and protection. The protections in the Constitution are not strong enough, and powerful majorities can work through legislation and the courts to withhold rights from or strip away rights of minorities they don't like.

All of these systems, at time, do not work because people are involved who corrupt the system with personal desires and ideologies.

Neither proportional representation nor winner take all are better in my opinion.

[RiverStone]

8. Thanks for the thoughtful answer, but then what do you think does work?

Oz said: Neither proportional representation nor winner take all are better in my opinion.

Do you have a different example of a true democratic system which reflects a better way to govern?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. A group of courageous people with a few ethics and morals willing to work their asses of...

for the benefit of everybody in the group, and not only for their own personal power or wealth. I think any political system can work, when citizens believe it can work, and are actively involved in making it work.

Our system fails because, except in some Presidential elections, a majority of people rarely vote. Because we are a government elected by those who vote, only the will of the minority is really considered. Within that system, there are a few who are willing to work for the benefit of all the people, most of them only work for the benefit of their constituents who voted for them and their constituents who donated money to get them elected. As the cost of elections goes up, the consideration for the donors eclipses even the voters.

The soft socialism in Norway works well, as do many countries that have proportional representation. But if you look at England for the last decade or Israel for about forty years, those systems have moved from real success to failure for the people they served. The Soviet Union did some good things, but never really worked for the benefit of people. China is proving that Communism and Capitalism are natural partners, as long as the leaders are willing to trample on the workers. I think our system worked its best between WWII and 1980, when millions fought to make it a better place. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for landmark rights issues such as Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just as both Democrats and Republicans voted against it. Neither of those would be passed today as politics has become two armed camps seeking money from the rich and corporations to facilitate their acquisition and hold on power.

Since 1980, it has become more and more dysfunctional, as people decoupled from the system in pursuit of personal lives and elections become ever more expensive requiring vast injection of funds from corporations and the wealthy, who serve their own interests.

So I think the best system is one where the citizens are active in choosing representatives, and representatives are beholden only to the voters. It doesn't matter what you name that system. We don't have that system right now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. You have a point about the electorate not being engaged, but

if there are no worthy candidates running, then an engaged electorate could still wind up with a bad government. As long as we have candidates running with huge "war chests" we are in trouble. We're stuck with "He who has the gold, rules."

[Ozymanithrax]

15. If the electorate is engaged, candidates that are responsive to the voters...

will rise.

With much of the electorate choosing not to vote, candidates can create a constituency as the Republicans have done well, and the Democrats poorly. If every election was a referendum on how each individual candidate did in serving the interests of the voters, it would be harder for people to be re elected. As it is, in most years, most of the Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and such continue. Candidates craft a message using speaking points meant to get their dedicated voters to the voting booth. Dissemination of speaking points is paid by big doors who have business interests in keeping some people in power. Many of these people have so much money that the donate to both sides, though more to the side they favor, so they always have their interests in the hearts of minds of the elected.

YOu want to improve he system, publicly finance all elections, make every election day a national paid holiday, and give everyone who votes a $100.00 deduction form their taxes for every election the vote in. With more people voting, and business interests removed from the equation better people will be elected.

[RiverStone]

16. it will take a lot for a majority to pay attention

Thought you'd be interested in this: http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

Getting people to take personal responsibility and participating in government is difficult when so many flip on reality TV and believe what the MSM tells them.

I believe the only thing which will involve the citizenry is for folks to feel compelled. Think of the old Terminator movies, stupid yes - but human vs the corporate machine may someday lead to another revolution. It may take that to get people off their ass.

[dana_b]

7. Yes

although I can't see that ever happening here. I would still love an alternative vote (instant runoff). This may help to go towards proportional representation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. I do, among other election reforms. In theory it would allow for

more minority candidates (and by this I mean race, ethnicity, gender) to take office. Similarly it would balance out the Congressional houses in terms of the ratio of millionaires. Right now there are far more millionaires in there than there ought to be, if you go by the breakdown of the population.

However, we might also be able to effect those changes using other methods such as publicly financed campaigns, open debates, and ranked voting.

[roomfullofmirrors]

12. There are probably better ways.

[LWolf]

13. Conditionally.

I'd support proportional representation if it were accompanied by IRV.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with IRV. THAT would be a damned good way to keep the bigger players honest when it comes to representing voters.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. The US would be much better off with a parliamentary form of government...

with proportional represention. The threshold is usually 5% in European countries with proportional representation; it leads to more and smaller parties and forces more coalition politics (which is fine, the Democratic Party as such would probably break up into a Social Democratic Party, a Third Way Party, etc, and the Republicans could become the Christian Party and the Laissez-Faire Party or something).

[RegieRocker]

18. Yes! Our system sucks because Americans have a low level of expectatons.

[AlabamaLibrul]

19. Yes, absolutely. (nt)