For those of you who don't know, proportional representation (PR) is a common form of voting in countries where instead of electing candidates in single districts to seats in the government, a political party forms a list of candidates and a manifesto, and based on the list and manifesto, the people vote for parties, rather than individual candidates. Then, depending on what percentage of votes a party receives, that party receives that percentage of available seats.
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Could proportional representation work in America?
Isn't that already happening in a way?
How so?usmarine2007 wrote:
Isn't that already happening in a way?
Well, people already vote parties from what I understand.Elamdri wrote:
How so?usmarine2007 wrote:
Isn't that already happening in a way?
Well, see here is how it currently works
Lets say Marine that you and I live in congressional district 100.
Now, lets say that you, along with 60% of the people in congressional district 100 voted for candidate A.
meanwhile, I, along with the other 40% of the people in congressional district 100 voted for candidate B.
Now, for ease of this example, lets pretend that in ever district, the same thing happened, a 40-60 split between candidate A and B, with candidate A (that district's representative from party A) receiving 60%.
Thus in each district, candidate A wins, and we have a congressional body that is dominated by party A, with no members of party B in congress, DESPITE the fact that 40% of the people voted for a candidate from party B.
That is how America works now, aside from the whole irrationalness of that example, the people who vote for the looser do not receive representation from people who they desire.
In a PR system, however
Same thing happens, except that instead of voting for candidate A or B, the people vote for Party A and B, and we have a 40-60 split, with Party A receiving 60%. However since it is PR, Party A thus receives 40% of the seats in Congress, and Party B receives 40% of the seats in Congress.
The real big change with PR however is the death of the 2 party system (which is why America will never see PR). Because in PR, ANY party can win seats. If the Green Party gets 15% of the votes, they get 15% of the seats in Congress (All PR systems have a Threshold that a party must meet (Between 5%-10%) to keep out parties like the Nazi party and such).
The only loss in a PR system is the ability to select the individual candidate.
Lets say Marine that you and I live in congressional district 100.
Now, lets say that you, along with 60% of the people in congressional district 100 voted for candidate A.
meanwhile, I, along with the other 40% of the people in congressional district 100 voted for candidate B.
Now, for ease of this example, lets pretend that in ever district, the same thing happened, a 40-60 split between candidate A and B, with candidate A (that district's representative from party A) receiving 60%.
Thus in each district, candidate A wins, and we have a congressional body that is dominated by party A, with no members of party B in congress, DESPITE the fact that 40% of the people voted for a candidate from party B.
That is how America works now, aside from the whole irrationalness of that example, the people who vote for the looser do not receive representation from people who they desire.
In a PR system, however
Same thing happens, except that instead of voting for candidate A or B, the people vote for Party A and B, and we have a 40-60 split, with Party A receiving 60%. However since it is PR, Party A thus receives 40% of the seats in Congress, and Party B receives 40% of the seats in Congress.
The real big change with PR however is the death of the 2 party system (which is why America will never see PR). Because in PR, ANY party can win seats. If the Green Party gets 15% of the votes, they get 15% of the seats in Congress (All PR systems have a Threshold that a party must meet (Between 5%-10%) to keep out parties like the Nazi party and such).
The only loss in a PR system is the ability to select the individual candidate.
Last edited by Elamdri (2007-01-22 19:10:11)
this would senselessly bog down the already overloaded bureacracy, as well as produced highly simplistic, watered-down legislation similar to that of a divided government. This would occur because, logically, there would be a plethora of 3rd parties that may only be single issue parties. This single issue bickering would effectively gridlock Congress, and thus our nation. While this may have the best of intentions, I feel it is impractical at best.
EDIT:: Clarity/Functionality of argument
EDIT:: Clarity/Functionality of argument
Last edited by R0lyP0ly (2007-01-22 19:21:02)
I turned NZ politics into a fucking joke and let a lot of people into parliament, who its questionable would ever get there via a direct vote.
Proportional representation is another of those ideas that sounds absolutely fantastic on paper but sucks hind tit in real life. Much like communism. Great on paper, well thought out, functions like shit here in the real world.
The problem is that the third parties that appear are not comprehensive parties. Look at countries that have a PR system in place. You get parties that are one or at most two issue parties. Here in the states, you'd have 9 different parties that are pro-life and 8 that are pro-choice alone. That's well before you get into guns, immigration, and the environment, all of which are devisive enough issues to get their own party.
You end up with these useless shaky coalition governments that never get anything worthwhile accomplished because they can't risk offending one of the members of the coalition. Not to mention the chaos that would ensue between the two chambers of Congress.
When it comes right down to it, I want to vote for a person. If he/she fucks up, I want to vote him/her out of office. I want the buck to stop on a desk, not a conference table. As messed up as our system of government may be, it works really well, compared to everyone else's.
The problem is that the third parties that appear are not comprehensive parties. Look at countries that have a PR system in place. You get parties that are one or at most two issue parties. Here in the states, you'd have 9 different parties that are pro-life and 8 that are pro-choice alone. That's well before you get into guns, immigration, and the environment, all of which are devisive enough issues to get their own party.
You end up with these useless shaky coalition governments that never get anything worthwhile accomplished because they can't risk offending one of the members of the coalition. Not to mention the chaos that would ensue between the two chambers of Congress.
When it comes right down to it, I want to vote for a person. If he/she fucks up, I want to vote him/her out of office. I want the buck to stop on a desk, not a conference table. As messed up as our system of government may be, it works really well, compared to everyone else's.
We have proportional representation here in the Republic. Works fine. Best economy in Europe.
It works alright in Germany as far as I know, Grand Coalition and whatnot. I think some of the problems with fragment parties can be solved with a high threshold around 15% or so. Beer Drinkers Party is not going to get 15% of the votes.
How does it work when the people in the parties don't agree with each other on the issues? Quite frankly I'd rather vote for individuals with no political party association. The two party system needs to die.
Deals are done prior to coalition over ministerial positions here in Ireland. At the moment Fianna Fáil, a centrist party (the main party in Ireland) and the Progressive Democrats (a tiny conservative party) share power. The PDs have two ministerial positions and they control all matters pertaining to those ministries (health and law), although Fianna Fáil have shifted them around into different ministries during the tenure.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
How does it work when the people in the parties don't agree with each other on the issues? Quite frankly I'd rather vote for individuals with no political party association. The two party system needs to die.
FPP was hardly a fair system, you could basically only vote for labour or national if you wanted your vote to count. Granted we do have that whole "wait while they negotiate with prospective partners" thing, but at least you now have more choice than National or Labour.vedds wrote:
I turned NZ politics into a fucking joke and let a lot of people into parliament, who its questionable would ever get there via a direct vote.
-----
For the un-knowing (which is most of you ), New Zealand switched to a proportional representation system in 1996.
Previously, minor parties would rarely (if ever) receive representation in government, and one of two parties would form the government; National (conservative, pro-business) or Labour (liberal, pro-union/worker).
Currently, "popular" minor parties commonly receive representation in parliament; NZ First (nationalist), ACT ("Association of Consumers and Tax-payers"; pro-business), the Maori party (indigenous), the Greens (liberal, environmental), United Future (conservative, christian), and Progressives (a weird mix of con/lib, mostly one guys agenda) have all seen the inside of parliament from an MP's seat.
Proportional representation in New Zealand has seen the arrival of a "bargaining" post-election phase where National and Labour, the traditional ruling parties, clamour for coalition partners. The shape of the government isn't clear for a while, but does have the effect of representing the voting wishes of New Zealand more clearly.
Uh, supergluing candidates to their parties is bad, m'kay?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-23 02:03:22)
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Could proportional representation work in America?