The Economist has this article about polarisation in the United States. Near the end, it says, “There’s one Constitutional change that could unlock the crippling polarisation in American politics: a switch to a proportional-representation or single-transferable-vote system in one house of Congress. That would make multiple parties viable.”
UPDATE: also see this article by Krist Novoselic, published in Salon on May 17.
P.R. has been around since the 1840s (repeat 1840s) – if not earlier.
Gerrymander math —-
1/2 votes (or less) in a bare majority of the pack/crack gerrymander areas) = 25 percent (or less) EVIL/VICIOUS minority rule.
MUCH worse primary math — circa 5-10 percent REAL minority rule — thus the EVIL powermad control freaks in the Dumb City Congress and in all 50 State legislatures.
If the author can propose a constitutional change (PR) which would never be supported by the “duopoly,” so can I.
Here it is…
“No financial or other tangible support, direct or indirect, may be given to a candidate for any elected office, unless the provider of that support lives in the state or municipality in which the candidate is running for office. Congress shall have the power to specify a maximum amount which may be contributed by any individual to any candidate in a calendar year, but in no case shall that amount exceed one million dollars. All contributions to candidate for federal offices shall be disclosed publicly in a manner Congress shall specify.”
There – you want to bust up the “duopoly” you got it. You want to make it more difficult for officeholders to hold an office until they die, you got it. You want third parties to have a chane of gaining a real footing, locally and nationally, you got it.
Interesting idea, but it seems to favor wealthy people (or corporations)who have more than one residence.
The Economist author is absolutely correct that governance in the United States of America will be much improved once we start using Proportional Representation.
OK then…set the limit at some lower amount. How about $500,000? $100,000? $25,000? The amount isn’t really the most important aspect of this idea. Here are the important aspects:
Citizens United? Gone.
PAC’s? Gone.
Super PAC’s? Gone.
Inter-campaign transfers? Gone.
Secret financial support? Gone.
Party senate and congressional campaign committees? See ya.
You like someone? If you can vote for him or her you can give money to their campaign – with a check or a credit card with your name on it. You want to exercise your free speech to support someone clear across the country? Fine. Write a letter to the editor. Get in your car an volunteer to support their campaign. get behind a megaphone in their city’s center. Speak with something other than money.
And to your oher point – of course one can only vote in the precinct of one’s residence.
Also…corporations can’t vote, so they are prohibited from providing support to any candidate.
The Economist article suggests PR or STV for one house of congress to achieve multiple viable parties and the tells us such a thing is never going to happen. The author thinks he retains viability if his point if it is just academic.
Novoselic sees stuff like that and offers stuff he thinks is doable like rebranding PR as having an American formula, having a very high threshold for election and districts that aren’t primarily partisan creations. I give him credit for a single-minded assault on a heavy fixture: The single-member district as is.
The aim has to be higher though if the magnitude of the situation is to be understood. If there aren’t at least five viable national parties, we’re not there yet. If members of legislative bodies aren’t elected by several various methods ranging from slate and plurality to STV and approval, coming in a very close second, sortition, list PR, and other ways too, we’re not there yet.
I think we need at least 11 – no – 23 parties.
Israel-the country that dominates most of US foreign policy-has 12 parties in its parliament as of the 2009 election. 23 may be aiming too high. Generally speaking, the lower the threshold (it’s 2% in Israel)the more parties you get.
Some of the New Age P.R. regimes are about 95 percent REAL democracies — BUT are the FATAL parliamentary 2/3 tyrant regimess —
Israel, Germany, New Zealand, S. Africa, etc.
——-
P.R. and separate nonpartisan App.V. for executive/judicial offices — pending major head to head math education.
I used to be avle to find good advicxe from your blog posts.
Hola! Gracias porr esta información. Llevaba un rato buscando por
internet sobre este tema hasta que he encontrado tu web.
Está muy bien el artículo. Sigue de este modo!