The McGill International Review, a Canadian publication, has this article, “What Would Proportional Representation Look Like in the United States?” Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
The McGill International Review, a Canadian publication, has this article, “What Would Proportional Representation Look Like in the United States?” Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
ANTI-Democracy gerrymander ROT —
back to English House of Commons in 1200s.
Infected world – USA, Canada, India, etc etc.
More ROT with Brit Parl system – same partisan HACK execs having both legis and exec powers.
ZERO learned from 1933-1945 Germany.
—–
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
The article provides no specifics on how such a system would work. It implies that radical Constitutional changes are required, without specifying what they might be, altho there is a strong suggestion that the Senate be abolished, and that Congress become a unicameral legislature.
But, in fact, no radical Constitutional change is required to implement proportional representation in the selection either of Representatives in Congress, or of Presidential Electors. Any state that would prefer to select its Reps and Electors by PR could simply pass laws to that effect (altho choosing Reps without single member districts might require enabling legislation by Congress).
And, this shows the great flexibility of our Constitution. States are not bound by it to any particular voting method.
great flexibility = Civil War I and pending Civil WAR II.
Begging incumbents for ANY REAL Democracy is like asking Stalin and Hitler for Democracy reforms in 1941-1945 — waste of time if not fatal to the beggar.
——–
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
If the US adopted a PR system similar to that of Denmark – which has a threshold of 2% for representation – then used the largest remainder method with the Hare quota, the US would a multiparty Legislature. Of course, the size of the US House would need to be increased so that no state elects a single member.
@ DWP
While, IMO, it would be worthwhile to expend the size of the House of Reps to make it more proportional to population, it is not necessary to prevent the election of Reps by PR in those states that have more than one Rep. That simply means that states with only one Rep could chose that Rep by a different voting method, such as RCV or approval voting.
Not a very informative article unless one had never heard that such a thing existed.
Walter,
States couldn’t adopt PR on their own terms. The Constitution reserves to Congress the right to override state laws in regards to the elections of members of the House. That is why we currently have single member districts. Congress passed a law requiring them. Without Congress changing the current law, a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
since 1820s-1840s
USA — in late DARK AGE.
Sadly, this article does not consider the change in dynamics that a PR system would bring about. It holds everything that is currently happening as a constant. For example, the article states, “However, the counterargument to this is that the US doesn’t have the democratic ethos for parties to be willing to build coalitions.’ OK but that exists because of the current FPTP system. I most likely would change after PR is adopted. This is just one example. There are plenty of other changes that would happen, such as support in the form of votes for minor parties. Many smaller parties would probably see an increase in support as the wasted vote argument goes away. So we can’t say for certain that the Libertarians or Greens or whoever, would only be say around 2 %. Once PR is implemented their support could radically change.
@Eric L. …. Precisely, and there is no concept of “forming a government” in the US system. Coalitions can be formed on a per bill basis (how it’s supposed to work anyway). The only thing that might be a hindrance would be the election of the speaker of house. Beyond that permanent coalitions need not exist.
@ EZK:
As I pointed out in my first comment, Congress would probably have to pass enabling legislation to remove the current federal requirement for single member districts. While difficult, this would be a whole level easier than a Constitutional amendment.
@ Aiden:
A few years ago when Republicans couldn’t agree on a Speaker for the House, someone suggested that Newt Gingrich could come back as Speaker, even tho at that time he wasn’t a member of the House, because the Constitution didn’t specify that the Speaker needed to be a Rep. So, in theory, if no party had a majority in the House by any method of election, it’s possible to chose a non-member as a compromise Speaker.
One or more hacks as Speaker for a few hours per day.
Might reduce the fixation with LAWLESS tyrant killer monarch Prezs —
with their nonstop LAWLESS Acts of War in foreign regimes.
I don’t care