The New America Foundation has released this 20-page report, discussing how proportional representation could work for a unicameral California legislature. There is very little discussion of proportional representation in the United States, so this document is noteworthy.
Holy crap! MORE legislators? Good luck to anyone trying to turn that into a selling point.
However–yay! yay! yay! for putting this out there. I especially like the opening arguments for the necessity for a change.
I’m originally from New Zealand, and Mixed Member Proportional was a great improvement over the first-past-the-post/winner-take-all system that we had before.
I think this is an important proposal for the way it links proportional representation to the concerns of the various regions of California. That’s a creative approach. It could be used just as well as a way to describe choice voting/STV.
Increasing the number of seats is, as Rosa says, very unpopular with the general public. The New America authors make a valiant attempt to overcome this by spinning it as way to make district-based legislators closer to the people they represent. But it is a really, really hard sell.
On the other hand, a substantially larger legislature would help small parties somewhat even in the absence of proportional representation. If districts were a lot smaller, some of them could eventually contain enough Libertarians or Greens to get a handful of seats eventually. This is a reform proposal worth talking up even if the prospects seem grim.
I suppose one way to approach the numbers would be to tally up all the people who are on the gazillion boards and commissions that oversee things like water and infrastructure–some of them elected and some appointed–and add them to the number of legislators we currently have.
But I’m not clear from a quick reading of the report if the proposal recommends doing away with those highly localized bodies, EBMUD for example.
And some of those California boards are merely rubber stamps for the poorest administrators on the west coast.
The CALVETS board is in the same building, shares a lunch room, staff, computers, phones with the folks that they are suppose to over see. [AOK class, all together now ‘Organizational Incest’!]
Their over turn rate of horrible California Department of Veterans Affairs blunders hovers at one percent! [You know, kinda like Nazi and Communist show trials……..]
With a 5% threshold there is really no reason to use D’Hondt rather than St. Lague. What is the worst that could happen? A Green and a Libertarian both elected among the 10 members from Northern California?
Thomas Jefferson proposed using D’Hondt for congressional apportionment in 1792 because it resulted in compliance with the Consitutional requirement of no more than one representative per 30,000 people. As a result, Delaware with a population equivalent to almost 2 representatives, but not quite, was denied a 2nd representative. This hardly comports with any meaningful definition of “proportionality”, but rather a definition of “constitutional”.
OTOH, the 5% threshold is likely to result in 3rd parties blinking on and off. A consistent 5% result statewide would result in roughly 16 members. Drop below 5%, and your delegation is wiped out. With a regionally inconsistent 5%, you might have a handful of members from Los Angeles after one election, and none the next.
Wow, exciting, Please let this this idea make some traction!
It’s interesting, I wonder if New America is working with the Bay Area Council on these ideas. The Bay Area Council has been advocating for a constitutional convention since the state’s failure to pass a budget on time again this year.
The unicameral legislative model was also considered by the Constitutional Revision
Commission of 96′, but was later dismissed due to insuffient knowledge of the mechanics of the system, which is odd since the state of Nebraska and other nations use or primarilay use a single body legislature.
By the way, an interesting read is the 96′ Constitutional Revision Commission’s final recommendations, here: http://www.caforward.org/dynamic/subpages/sb_subpages_text_9_english_2248.pdf
Who would order the party lists?
Presumably, the party primaries would still be used to select district nominees.
If a 3rd party in a moderate sized region (30 members) elects anyone, it will be one or two off the regional list. Who the 5th or 6th candidates on the list hardly matters as to who is elected, but could conceivably attract voters to the party.
Shouldn’t the party voters be able to determine who is elected? But what happens in Los Angeles where dozens of party members might be elected from the party list?
A major party that goes from 40% of the vote to 50% of the vote could go from 5 district + 7 regional members to 10 district + 5 regional members. Some of the ex-regional members might be elected from a district. But other could lose their seat.
If there are district residency requirements, it’s reasonable to assume that two (or more) attractive candidates for a party might live in the same district, perhaps the same neighborhood or even the same house. In other districts, the party will struggle to find a candidate. So one of the two district residents could be elected as a district representative, while the other is placed high on the party list. But if the party has more success, the regional member could lose his seat, replaced by another district member who owed a large part of his success to his party identity.
How would independents be handled? Would they run as regional lists with a few fellow independents? It could well be easier to get 5% of the vote in San Diego than 40%+ of the vote in one of 16 districts (assuming one can get elected in a 3-way split vote). The number of votes required for election is doubled, but there are 16 times as many voters to secure them from.
The gerrymander death spiral since 4 July 1776 = half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25-30 percent corrupt and evil indirect MINORITY RULE by the party hacks — Speakers, Majority leaders — with resulting undeclared wars, genocide of the Indian tribes, slavery, depressions, inflations, etc. etc.
———-
Major Reforms —
1. Proportional Representation in all legislative body elections —
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each Seat Winner
ALL voters get represented with Majority Rule (DEMOCRACY) and minority representation.
2. NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judges.
——————
Basic Democracy Election Reforms 4 Aug 2008
Sec. A. All candidates for the same office in the same area shall have the same nominating petition requirements to get on the [general] election ballots.
Sec. B. (1) The Electors shall elect the members of each legislative body (odd number at least 5) in each year for 1 year terms.
(2) Each legislative body district shall have between 2 and 5 times the total number of Electors at the last [general] election in all districts divided by the total members in the body.
(3) As nearly as possible, each district shall consist of 1 or more local governments or part of 1 local government and be contiguous and square.
Sec. C. (1) Each legislative body candidate shall get a list of all candidates for the body in all districts at least [7] weeks before the [general] election.
(2) Each candidate shall rank the other candidates in all districts (using 1 (highest), 2, etc.) and file such list not later than [4] P.M. [6] weeks before the [general] election.
(3) The lists shall be made public immediately at such deadline.
(4) If a valid list is not filed, then the candidate’s name shall be removed from the ballots.
[Equal Votes per winner P.R.]
Sec. D. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 candidate for each legislative body.
(2) The Average shall be the Total Votes for all candidates in all districts divided by the Total Members to be elected in all districts, dropping fractions. Ave = TV/TM.
(3) A candidate who gets the Average shall be elected.
(4) The most excess votes above the Average shall be repeatedly moved to 1 or more unelected candidates, using the elected candidate’s rank order list.
(5) Only the votes needed to get the Average shall be moved to any 1 unelected candidate.
(6) If all members are not elected, then the candidate with the least votes in all districts shall lose.
(7) The loser’s votes shall be moved to 1 or more unelected candidates, using the original losing candidate’s rank order list and subject to (5).
(8) Steps (6) and (7) shall repeat, if necessary.
(9) Example- 100 Votes, Elect 5, Average 20
A 26 – 6 = 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 18 + 2 = 20 Elected
D 16
E 9
F 7 + 4 = 11
G 4
Excess A votes moved.
—–
A 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 20 Elected
D 16
F 11 + 4 = 15
E 9
G 4 – 4 = 0 Loses
—–
A 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 20 Elected
D 16 + 4 = 20 Elected
F 15 + 5 = 20 Elected
E 9 – 9 = 0 Loses
Sec. E. (1) A legislative body candidate or member may file a written rank order list of persons to fill his/her vacancy, if any.
(2) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill the vacancy.
(3) If the preceding does not happen, then the legislative body shall fill the vacancy with a person of the same party (if any) immediately at its next meeting. [i.e. NO more vacancy special elections.]
Sec. F. (1) All elected executive officers and all judges shall be nominated for and elected at nonpartisan [general] elections.
(2) Each Elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each elected executive office or judge (including 1 write-in for each position).
[This is the Approval Voting method]
(3) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively in the case of 2 or more positions with different terms).
—
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
Mini-modifications for the U.S.A. regime — i.e. each State or other U.S.A. area (D.C., territories, colonies) would be deemed a *local government* in Sec. B. for electing a *democratic* Congress — rather than the current EVIL gerrymander monarchs.
Make it for the Assembly only. Let the Senate be appointed by the county supervisors instead.
An easier to understand approach would be to provide that after each census, California is divided into a number of districts equal to its representation in Congress.
Each district would elect one Congressman, and one State Senator by plurality vote. Each district would choose 3 (or 5) members of the Assembly by Preferential Vote (also known as Single Transferable Vote).
The legislators would be close the people they represent, but the minority party in each district would get at least one Assembly member, and the alternative parties would have a goal of electing Assembly members – a more attainable goal than at present.
Gene Berkman Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“An easier to understand approach would be to provide that after each census, California is divided into a number of districts equal to its representation in Congress.
Each district would elect one Congressman, and one State Senator by plurality vote. Each district would choose 3 (or 5) members of the Assembly by Preferential Vote (also known as Single Transferable Vote).”
That’s a pretty good idea. Keeps things simple. The only difference I have is that I would prefer to elect the Congresscritters and State Senators by IRV.
@Gene Berkman: five lower house seats per district would be a lot better than three. 110 years of experience in Illinois showed that three-seat PR balances the legislature between the two major parties (Chicago Republicans got representation, as did rural, downstate Democrats) but does not represent minor parties or independents. Five seat districts is about the threshold for starting to broaden representation beyond the duopoly.
Otherwise, STV for the lower house combined with single-seat districts (using IRV as Tom Yager suggests) for the upper house would be a big step and very supportable.
Assuming that California ends up with 54 House seats
in 2010, than we will have 270 Assembly members. The
weakness with this idea which I approve of, is that
the new Legislative meeting hall would need to be
designed to accomodate a growing Legislature. If the
estimates that I’ve read about the 2050 population
estimate turns out to be accurate, there will be 70 or
more Congressmen from California, producing over 350
members in the Assembly. Clearly, the State Senate
could use the current Assembly room for quite awhile.
Another factor is when there would be an odd number of
Congress members like now (53) the Lt. Governor won’t
be able to break ties as they could only occur when 1
Senate seat was vacant for whatever reason.
As an aside, I find it interesting that whenever 3rd
parties are mentioned on this issue, it’s always the
Green or Libertarian Party that might win a seat and
not the American Independent Party which currently has
over 3 times the registration of the Green’s and over
4 times that of the Libertarian’s. However, it is far
more evenly spread throughout California compared to
the Greens who are heavily concentrated around the
San Francisco Bay Counties.
I would prefer the State Senate to be increased to 48
or 60 and the Assembly be 5-7 members elected in a 1
round at-large election like most Cities and School
Districts use here. Whichever 5-7 people gets the most
votes wins & the top vote getter would Chair their
meetings before votes.
#10. What if California were to lose representation in Congress? It’s not so far-fetched. In the 1990s, California population increased 13.8%, only slightly more than 13.1% for the USA as a whole. That California gained a representative at all in 2000 was a result of a particular unusual distribution of population among the States.
Let each representative cast as many votes as the people he represents. Each county could have its own representative(s). The representative from Alpine County simply wouldn’t have much voting strength – but it would be that same as the residents of the county now have in statewide or initiative elections. Their representative could be given a smaller salary, a permit to park his bike at the capital, a steel case desk, a shared staff member, etc.
More populous counties could be divided into districts. Perhaps districts could have a range in population of 70,000 to 130,000 so that most representatives have comparable clout (procedural rules could simply extend the range of decision making rules from unanimous consent (no objections), voice vote, simple roll call, to proportional roll call).
District boundaries could be changed by plebiscite, so long as the changes didn’t result in districts going out of range. After a census, there might be a few districts that needed to be split, or in more extreme cases merged. Voters in the smallest counties (less than 70,000) could be permitted to merge their single-county district with adjacent counties.
If you also wanted party proportionality, simply weight the vote in the Assembly by the share of the vote. District sizes would be increased (say to 350,000 to 650,000) and the top five elected. Losing candidates could transfer their support to the elected candidates. Or the votes could be transferred as part of the procedure for determining the winning 5 candidates, with trailing candidates being eliminated in turn, and transferring their votes to other candidates. Voting power could either be directly based on the votes cast; or based on the population, and distributed in proportion to the votes cast.