This week, the Libertarian Party of California joined the ProRep Coalition, which seeks to have the California legislature elected through a proportional representation voting system.
This was covered on Independent Political Report. Thanks!
This week, the Libertarian Party of California joined the ProRep Coalition, which seeks to have the California legislature elected through a proportional representation voting system.
This was covered on Independent Political Report. Thanks!
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
Are a bad idea.
Are there any specifics on how this would work? “Proportional representation” is a very broad term. The article didn’t provide much detail about the actual proposal.
I think they actually meant to join the PrEP coalition in support of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. This proposal came close to being defeated by HIV positive party members who advocated joining the PEP (post exposure prophylaxis) coalition instead.
What format of PR do they want to use?
PR –
PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK ORDER LISTS OF ALL OTHER CANDS IN ALL DISTS
TOTAL VOTES/TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH MEMBER
HIGHEST SURPLUS – DOWN – REPEAT
LOWEST LOSER – UP – REPEAT
ALL VOTES COUNT.
https://www.prorepcoalition.org
CA PR GROUP
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-reelection-house-seat/index.html
EVIL COMMIE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST ???
WHERE IS DOROTHY OF WIZARD OF OZ ???
ANY TORNADOS IN SF AREA ???
I doubt any of the groups promoting Proportional Representation have a specific plan. The goal right now is to make people aware that a system exists which might make legislative bodies more representative, including providing that minorities – political or otherwise – will have a chance to be represented.
After it looks like significant number of people are receptive, then more concrete ideas can be proposed.
Go away commie Berkman.
These generic reform proposals tend to gain rather fuzzy support, that usually goes nowhere. IMO, this is due to the fact that there isn’t a specific reform proposal that people can actually grasp and consider.
If these guys need an idea, I offer two proposals that could lead to more proportional representation in Congress:
1. A minimum Congressional district size of 1,000 square miles, which would result in many metro areas having multi-member districts, which is what you need to get to proportional representation.
2. Adopt the Wyoming Rule to expand the size of the US House by 100+ members. This would result in more reps per state, and more reps per multi-member district, which also advances more proportional representation.
SEPARATE USA/STATE DEFINITIONS OF ELECTORS/VOTERS.
TV/TM = PR IN ALL REGIMES.
EACH REP DIST = 1 OR MORE FED AREAS OR PART OF 1 FED AREA.
CONTIGUOUS IF POSSIBLE – IE BIT SPECIAL FOR HI, 1 STATE REPS, DC AND USA COLONIES.
ABOLISH MINORITY RULE USA SENATE AND 12 AMDT EC
AZ is lying. Lots of people and groups support proportional representation. Very few if any support his bizarre cockamamie scheme of forcing candidates to rank all other candidates as a condition of running.
I want more wind farms!
AZ’s plan sounds fucking retarded. I would choose the Max Plan over his.
Abolishing the Senate and Electoral college are two more terrible ideas.
The reason PR and various such other plans don’t gain much steam is because very few voters care. That’s not going to change. Voters care about concrete issues that visibly impact their lives – taxes, education, crime, immigration, etc. Election administration methods are just not on most voters radar.
Secondly, as fringe niche interests, election method change advocacy groups attract people who are nitpickers, dividers, and perfectionists, not very prone to compromise, more prone to one upsmanship and escalating disagreements and being king of the hill. With the lack of success comes frustration and turning on each other or loss or waning of interest. So, it’s not surprising that these groups never get off the ground or make much headway, splinter, fade, etc.
A whale who supports wind farms would be suicidal, as well as a monster who wants to kill all the other whales.
Ken is correct.
@AZ,
This is about the California Legislature, not the governor. I do not believe you are in favor of a parliamentary form of government. No?
Walter Ziobro: “Are there any specifics on how this would work? ‘Proportional representation’ is a very broad term. The article didn’t provide much detail about the actual proposal.”
Great question. I (Felix Ling) serve on the board of directors of ProRep Coalition and as a registered Libertarian who co-chaired the ad hoc Alternative Voting Committee of the national LP in 2021, I was also part of the small team that made the pitch to the LPCA.
We are currently in the coalition-building and education phase and are likely several years away from the point where we’d be writing the actual ballot initiative. While we all have our favorite Proportional Representation (ProRep) methods (my personal fave is the hybrid Mixed Member Proportional as used in Germany, New Zealand, and Taiwan), it will be the coalition members that ultimately decide which version of ProRep the initiative proposes (including the California chapters of the LP, Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, etc.).
If you are interested in contributing anything from labor to contacts or ideas, we still recruiting for our Advisory Board and of course anybody who is interested in volunteering or simply getting our newsletter. You can see the current makeup of the Advisory Board at the bottom of this page, and you can hit the “Join Us” button in the upper right to get in touch.
https://www.prorepcoalition.org/about/
NOTA Z: “The reason PR and various such other plans don’t gain much steam is because very few voters care. That’s not going to change. Voters care about concrete issues that visibly impact their lives – taxes, education, crime, immigration, etc. Election administration methods are just not on most voters radar.”
I won’t deny that this will certainly be a steep uphill battle, but much the same could have been said ten years ago for Ranked Choice Voting, a reform which started off in just the California Bay Area and now enjoys great momentum after being used in high-profile elections in NYC and Alaska (as well as being used by the Virginia GOP to select Youngkin, a candidate with broad enough appeal to beat the Democrat in the general election).
ProRep just got its biggest victory last year when Portland, OR adopted it, and we are hopefully that it will bring ideological diversity to their governance (i.e., actually represent conservatives and others). There is also a high profile national organization now promoting just specifically ProRep (FixOurHouse) whose co-founder, Lee Drutman, appears very frequently in high-profile national publications. FairVote is also firmly behind ProRep, being the organization that still hosts the Proportional Representation Library assembled by Douglas Amy (although they usually only talk about PRCV these days).
So, don’t count us out! I’ve been an electoral reform advocate for 20 years and never in a million years did I dream then that it would have made anywhere close to the progress it has already made in the US. I spent pretty much my entire Cato Internship in 2008 trying to convince folks of the need for electoral reform with absolutely nobody there willing to listen, and now they have a scholar, Walter Olson, who publicly advocates for reforms like RCV.
But our biggest obstacle, of course, is the strength, power, and money behind the two-party duopoly, which is undoubtedly formidable. So, just decide for yourself if you’re with us or if you’re with them.
I don’t have anything against you. You seem like a decent family man from the photo on your site. But there’s nothing about the make-up of that board that suggests you will raise the millions of dollars that it costs to qualify a California ballot initiative or the tens of millions it typically costs to win the pro and con ad war to pass one.
RCV hasn’t passed in California either. It hasn’t made the ballot there, as far as I know. There’s nothing to suggest proportional representation will either. RCV passed in Maine because the left got together behind it full force due to LePage and Cutler, and in Alaska piggybacking off Top X. Those are lower population states with less costly ballot issues.
I’m not with you or with them. I’d like to see the Max plan, but that’s even way more remote than PR. About the only realistic thing I’m for is defeating the dims and leftards. When Trump takes his second Presidential oath of office I’ll be happier. If you get proportional representation in the California legislature…well, my hunch is it would have to be after you get it statewide in other states, unless you somehow get buy in from the legislature and no veto. And if it does not benefit their party, you won’t.
Spoken like a Republican, which is part of the duopoly last time I checked.
I’m not a member of any party. I’ve supported Republicans, American Independents, Libertarians, Reform Party/Independent, and Constitution Party for President. All those plus even Democrats (none recently) for other offices.
Trump also ran Reform Party, and has been registered Democrat, Independent / Independence and Reform as well as Republican. I’m with Trump, and the GOP only gets my support when they nominate good candidates like Trump, who doesn’t bow to any party or duopoly. In fact he still holds out the possibility of running third party if the GOP were to not nominate him.
This group appears to be concentrating on the California Legislature. Discussion about the executive, judiciary, Congress, and the electoral college is misplaced.
California has a large population and a small legislature. Each senator represents nearly a million residents. If you used STV in 5-member districts then each district would have nearly 5 million persons. There is also the issue that AZ alluded to, large variation in the electorate among districts. SD-24 has 687K registered voters, SD-14 has 428K registered voters, a 1.61 : 1.00 disparity. Unless you let votes flow between districts it will result in a legislature that is geographically malapportioned.
Statewide party lists will lead to a lack connection between voters and their senators and representatives.
A unicameral assembly would have 341 members. If you had 5-member districts they would have 580K per district. They could share a district office, with most of the staff performing clerical duties.
Rather than transferring votes between candidates and districts, use weighted voting. If a candidate gets 147,316 votes, they exercises that many votes in the legislature. Limiting voting to districts limits any assemblymember from having excessive power. Districts could be semi-permanent. For example, Tulare County would nominally be apportioned 4.11 members but that would vary based on actual turnout and population growth.
Los Angeles County would nominally be entitled to 83.76 members, and could be divided into around 17 districts based on population. The city of Los Angeles could be further subdivided, Long Beach could be entitled to 3.98 members, and other cities combined in a single district (e.g. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena).
Yeah, they’re not going to get the kind of money it takes for a California ballot initiative, much less to pass it, based on esoteric arguments about how to elect the state legislature. Who’s going to shell out millions of dollars for that?
I’d say split up California into multiple states. That probably won’t happen either. Maybe the easiest reform to pass would be if the rest of the states vote them out of the Union. The USA would be immediately better off.
No surprise, Felix Ling is a commie. He sounds like an Ogle clone.
They’d both be out of the USA if we kick CA out.
JR-
ROTTED TO THE CORE PARL REGIMES– FATAL
BRITS IN EARLY 1700S >>> TYRANT BRITS IN 1760S-1770S >>> USA AM REV WAR
HITLER PARL REGIME – FATAL TO 80 MILLION. BRAIN DEAD EUROS – KEEPING PARL REGIMES. ALSO IN ROTTED CANADA / INDIA / ETC.
—
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED CRACKED/PACKED GERRYMANDER DISTS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL
TOP 2 CA PRIMARY = MORE ROT
MORE NONVOTES – ESP IF 2 D OR 2 R IN GERRYMANDER DIST IN GENL ELECTION
MAIN RESULT OF ALL THE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS = LAWLESS TYRANT EXECS AND LAWLESS TYRANT COURTS —
USURPING THE LEGIS BODIES
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
FPOR ANY NON-TROLL MORONS-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
MORE FOR NON-TROLL MORONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
AREA FIXATION SINCE FOREVER- ESP SINCE OLDE BRIT HOUSE OF COMMONS G DISTS IN LATE 1200S.- 700 PLUS YEARS OF BRIT ROT – MINORITY RULE HC
TOTALLY ROTTED BY 1775-1776 – MANY/MOST G DISTS CONTROLLED BY KG3 / LORDS
LESS MINORITY RULE SINCE 1832 GREAT REFORM ACT AND LATER ACTS.
BRAIN DEAD FAILURE OF LIBDEMS TO FORCE PR AFTER 2010 ELECTION – LD/CONS COALITION.
UK FACING COMMIE LABOUR TAKEOVER- PROBABLE END OF MONARCHY.
—
PR – PART OF P-A-T
I don’t know what AZ is babbling about but I’m zero percent Puerto Rican and whether California legislature gets elected by proportional representation or not is not going to kill 6 million Jews or 6 million anybody. Now AZZ can get back to screaming crazy nonsense.
TROLL MORONS LOVE MINORITY RULE IN LEGIS BODIES AND RESULTING TYRANT MONARCHS AND COURTS.
IT SHOWS IN A-L-L 0.00000666 IQ POSTS.
—-
DAMN ALL TROLL MORONS.
FULL SPEED AHEAD TO REAL DEMOCRACY.
REMEMBER BATTLE OF MOBILE BAY IN CIVIL WAR I.
Real democracy is real communist, absolute zero iq troll moron AZ.
JR wrote:
“California has a large population and a small legislature.”
Absolutely. PR or not, California has a legislature that is WAY too small.
For PR, you would definitely need a bigger legislature.
WZ –
MORE / LESS GOVT CONTROL OF HUMANS / PROPERTY.
EVEN A 3 MEMBER SUPER- LEGISLATURE COULD BE ENOUGH.
BIT MORE FOR LARGER GROUPS – WITH OVERLAPS
YOUNG / MIDDLE / OLDE
POOR / MIDDLE / RICH
ETC ETC ETC
3 TO NTH POWER ???
3 – 9 – 27 – 81 – 243 ???
Pure democracy = total government control, absolute zero IQ aborted zombie AZ.
vlrc dotorg slash articles slash 84 dothtml
AZ pushes a lot of garbage ideas and doublespeak. Max plan > AZ raving loon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_Representation_League
OLD PR LEAGUE IN USA –
KILLED BY WW I AND GREAT DEPRESSION I
Robert Welch article is on point.
Wind farms make whales feel good.
Stop lying, Eddie Brown. Wind farms are a holocaust for whales. You are not a whale. You are lower than whale poop.
NOTA ZZZZ: “I’m not a member of any party.”
You support the leader of the Republican Party and criticize main competitor.
Incidentally, said leader had 4 years in power and didn’t do anything to tear down the duopoly and currently speaks out against helpful reforms like Ranked Choice Voting (which can lead to ProRep via PRCV as in Albany, CA — Portland’s successful PRCV campaign also stressed ranking over proportionality).
As they say, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
You’re quite dense. He’s not stuck on the GOP and neither am I. It’s more like independent conservatives like him and me staged a hostile partial takeover of one half of the uniparty, which may or may not be permanent. The former Republican establishment didn’t want him, and some of them would dance with joy if they could be rid of him now.
He’s done a hell of a lot to tear down the derp state/fake news uniparty, which is why they’re doing so much to tear him down. But they’re failing, and he learned a lot, so he’ll be a lot more effective his second term. And he’s right about RCV. I agree with him.
I’m an independent. I wouldn’t register with any party. Whether I’d vote for one depends on who the candidate is. I’ve voted for third parties and independent candidates as much or more as I have Republicans.
True independents like RCV. Note that both parties strongly dissuade anybody from voting for independent candidates or alternative parties, calling it “throwing your vote away.” A ranked ballot fixed this, making it safe for you to vote your conscience and support your true favorite while still voicing a preference between the two major parties with your 2nd or later pick.
This is also why both major parties like the current electoral system. It blocks competition. It’s also why RCV volunteer organizations like CalRCV are *filled* with Libertarians, Greens, and many other independents.
@WZ,
Maybe the PR folks should hook up with John Cox who funded an initiative that would have divided Senatorial Districts into neighborhood districts with around 10,000 persons and Assembly Districts into neighborhood districts with around 5,000 persons. These neighborhood representatives would choose a senator or assemblymember who go to Sacramento for the day to day legislative operations. The neighborhood representatives would vote on final passage of any legislation.
So you would have 99 neighborhood representatives in a Senate district who would meet and choose one among them to go to Sacramento. They could recall their Senator at any time, and could also meet, but ordinarily only vote on final passage, presumably by electronic means.
With such small districts, only door-to-door campaigning is practicable. Someone with a lot of money would not have such a big advantage since the 99 neighborhood representatives would meet and choose one of them to go to Sacramento.
But now instead of single-member districts elect multiple neighborhood representatives, and give them a weight equal to the votes they received. There is no need to rank candidates, since each voter gets to choose who represents them.
When choosing the senators and assemblymembers who serve in Sacramento, proportional methods could be used. Different methods could be used for the Senate and Assembly.
True independents like Trump.
Neighborhood association. Now you’re thinking.
True independents who win public office would use the power of that office (as well as the influence of their speech) to help reforms that help alternative parties like easier ballot access and electoral reforms like RCV and ProRep.
Jim Riley: “Maybe the PR folks should hook up with John Cox who funded an initiative that would have divided Senatorial Districts into neighborhood districts with around 10,000 persons and Assembly Districts into neighborhood districts with around 5,000 persons. These neighborhood representatives would choose a senator or assemblymember who go to Sacramento for the day to day legislative operations….
When choosing the senators and assemblymembers who serve in Sacramento, proportional methods could be used. Different methods could be used for the Senate and Assembly.”
That sounds like a very promising plan to me. Do you happen to know anybody who could get us in touch with John Cox?
You want independents to push communism?
Ineffective alternative parties are not the top goal of a true independent. Their purpose is to put pressure on Republicans to not be uniparty rhinos. When there’s a good leader like Trump, it’s even better than an alternative party. Your reforms make government bigger.
Except for the neighborhood association thing. That one actually that we agree on.
@PGI,
John Cox was a gubernatorial candidate in 2018. I think he lives in Rancho Santa Fe.
His plan would have very small single-member districts nested inside conventional senate or assembly districts. Elections would be by Top 2. In a district with a couple 1000 voters, campaigning would have to be door to door and there is more potential for independent candidates. The neighborhood members from a district would choose one of them to represent them in Sacramento (in effect it would be similar to legislatures electing US Senators prior to the 17th Amendment).
His proposal did not have a proportional aspect. That was my suggestion.
He spent $2.3 million trying to qualify the initiative in 2016, but came up 25,000 signatures short. He had the money, but apparently didn’t hire the most effective circulators.
“Ineffective alternative parties are not the top goal of a true independent.”
That’s exactly why true independents seek to remove the barriers to alternative parties that keep them weak. Barriers like strict ballot access laws as well as the high thresholds needed to win representation in single-seat districts.
“Their purpose is to put pressure on Republicans to not be uniparty rhinos. When there’s a good leader like Trump, it’s even better than an alternative party”
As I see it, the GOP is far more homogenous now than it was 20 years ago, exactly because strong leaders tend to be less tolerant of dissent. A two-party duopoly also means dissenters cannot credibly threaten to leave. And as the GOP is now largely populist (socially conservative but economically liberal), it has become much more of a RINO party especially compared to the Reagan days.
As I’ve said elsewhere, there are two axes of government power, economic and social. The more power government wields, the less liberty individuals enjoy, and vice versa. The US is notably out of the top 20 in both the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index and the Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index. The top ten in both are dominated by countries that use ProRep. The comment spam filter only seems to allow a single link, so I’ll link Heritage, and it’s not hard to find the other one.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
As we well know, our government has been steadily growing to a leviathan as the decades go by. After all, in a two-party system, the only party that complains about the deficit is the party that is out of power. Any party with majority power faces incentives to *increase* their influence by increasing the size of the government, and there’s *always* a party with majority power.
Decentralizing power away from the duopoly would fix that. Every party would become a minority party, and true Libertarians would finally win seats in proportion to the Libertarian voters. And true competition with the LP would force the GOP to pay more than lip service to their “goal” of limited government — which has not actually shrunk on their watch.
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again. If you truly seek limited government, the LP is the only game in town. True independents and true Libertarians support reforms that make it easier for the LP to have more influence (like RCV, which gives small parties endorsement power) and seats (like ProRep).
Thoughts on the new LNC rep Meredith Hays? She’s got a lot of fat in her face but nice knockers. I hope she is Mises.
pics plz
Only a headshot
https://ledermanlaw.net/meredith-hays/
She’s no Angela. Now there’s a hottie