I want to work towards a Proportional Representation system...

In reply to Driven5 :

Perhaps my post was too indirect... I was more specifically musing about the significant portion of the population who continue to use our enduring strength as a core argument against even discussing our malleable adaptability.

I believe that when people stop seeing where we are as anything other than a great starting point for something better, the system ceases to be self-correcting.
 

I mostly agree. I think it's much more than just a great starting point- it was that 200 years ago. On the flip side of that is the vocal contingent that wants to "tear the system down" without any effort to understand how it works or how it came to be. It it's also important to take into account what people want to change and why. Is to fix a weakness or is it just a means to get a different, temporary result? 

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

Yes. I have held this belief for a long time. I held it in California. I held it in Ohio. I decided before election day that I was going to work on this but waited until after election day to begin discussing it more broadly.

I believe both major parties work largely to represent their own interests, not the interests of the people. I believe we can implement a system that shifts more of that power to the will of the people. If the two parties dislike this because it threatens their stranglehold on power... I see that as a good thing.
 

That's good, and I agree. I'd go a step further and say that I suspect that both parties work together to enrich themselves and maintain control. While they don't like sharing with each other, they will stick together to ensure no one else gets a cut. They also make it hard for political outsiders. I'd love to see a path for third party candidates to get a serious shot, and think ranked choice may be a path. 

Driven5 said:

Why does there seem to be this baseline assumption that the way something enduring (if faltering) was successfully implemented 200 years ago was done so because they were so much more enlightened and intelligent than anybody who would follow, that it should be considered the best possible set of solutions for all time, rather than merely the best option available due to the limitations at the time, and/or not even the best option available at the time but rather a compromise made to secure something at least better than what they were coming from? Why is so taboo to look at the faults implemented by those who came before us with a critical eye for change, when not only is it what they were doing at the time too, but it's what they actively expected those that followed them (us) to do? One of humanities greatest follies may just be the mental gymnastics we will go through just to appease our fear of change.

Many of the reasons and motivations behind the creation of our system are no longer valid or applicable, and many others were never intended to deal with things they couldn't have foreseen. I agree that an overhaul is long overdue, and the longer we wait the more extensive it should be.

I agree that what was written so long ago doesn't apply to everything.  The right to bear arms was written how long ago and absolutely needs to disappear now, IMO.  However we're talking about the electoral system here specifically, not an overall blanket for everything centuries old.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I'd vote for you!

I've been thinking about similar things.
 

I think significant change would difficult because the vast majority of the voting public isn't very politically smart. Even the various different approaches to voting described here are too difficult to explain to the voting public. They wouldn't vote for something they don't understand. 
 

At the National level, I think the simplest change (that everyone can understand) that would produce the largest results would be to eliminate the winner-take-all approach to electoral votes at the state level. 
 

If a candidate earns the support of 13% of the State of California, there is no reason that his opponent should be awarded all 54 of the State's electoral votes. He earned 13% of them, and 7 votes should be awarded to him.

I live in a state that hasn't voted for a democratic candidate in 48 years.  The feeling that our vote doesn't matter is very legitimate. I also live 3.5 miles from the State border with one of the most important swing States in the country.  If I tune my radio to one station I get zero political ads whatsoever. If I tune it to another, it's mass chaos of the deluge of trash.  If the electoral votes were divided proportionally, both States votes would have more impact and better represent the people.

Its a simple system that everyone can understand.

SV reX said:

At the National level, I think the simplest change (that everyone can understand) that would produce the largest results would be to eliminate the winner-take-all approach to electoral votes at the state level. 

I think reforming how we select the president is important and matters. It's simple and easier to sell. There are also lots of people working on that already.

I think it would be more impactful to change how the legislature is selected. Congress is broken and dysfunctional. Because of that, we have seen an ongoing increase in the power of the Executive and Judicial branches. The original balance of powers is out of alignment. If we can make the legislature more functional and doing its job better, selecting the president becomes less critical.

I don't want any one person ruling through executive fiat regardless of what percent of popular vote they got.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I agree it would be more impactful to reform congressional selection processes.  I (sadly) just don't think enough people care.

It wouldn't shock me if 90% of voters can't name the representatives and senators from their own district. 

If simple reforms that everyone could understand and relate to could be applied to the race everyone cares about (Presidential), it would be easy to begin adopting similar changes down ticket and locally.
 

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 : Hey, I'm from More Equitable Democracy. The Future of Our Former Democracy is our podcast and that's awesome that it put you over the edge! I'd love to chat more. We just met with a few grassroots orgs who want to lead an effort in OH. Hit me up. Website www.equitabledemocracy.org. My name is Heather and I bet from there you can figure out my email address. If not, just fill out the contact form. 😁

SV reX said:

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I agree it would be more impactful to reform congressional selection processes.  I (sadly) just don't think enough people care.

I don't think enough people care yet either. Pick any significant policy change that has happened over the past 125 years. How many people cared about that issue 10 or 20 years before it got enacted. Or how many people think "Sure, it would be nice if... but that's not going to happen anytime soon." Look at this forum and thread. I think that frustration with our 2-party system is the majority view in this country.

I'm not looking to change things next year or even before the next presidential election. I'd love to see these changes happen within 10 years. I'm old enough now to be thinking on those kinds of timelines, but young enough that I could still have energy to push them over the finish line.

I'm not sold on the idea, but if I wanted to make it happen, here is what I would do.

Georgia currently used a proportional representation system for some local offices, but it doesn't use single transferable vote. The system is simpler - if there are X people on the commission, you get X votes. The top X vote getters win.

I would suggest first trying to introduce or expand such local systems. Get people familiar with them and demonstrate if they can work. Then wait until the census and redistricting to push for expanding it.

There are some features of European parliamentary democracy I don't want to see here. Representatives being required to vote on party lines with no dissent, or calling special elections because nobody can build a coalition, for example. I'm not sure if proportional representation is one I personally would want. It seems more likely to increase the numbers of extreme ideologues in Congress, but demonstrating if it works locally would do a lot to sell the idea on a national level.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I want to let you know that I appreciate the push-back you are giving me. It is very respectful disagreement and I welcome it. You are bringing up legitimate critiques that need good answers.

These ideas are big and complicated and fit inside my head because I'm putting energy into unraveling them. But convincing people is going to take being able to give clear and simple answers to questions like what you are asking. You are giving me a good opportunity to figure out how this message needs to be communicated more widely.

Thank you for being respectful and patient. And thanks to GRM as a whole for being a great group of people.

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

I 100% agree that this process should start with first improving local systems, demonstrating they are better, and then gradually expanding the sphere.

I also think the best systems will vary greatly based on size and location. I would not use the exact same system for a City Council as for a State Legislature as for the President. I would expect every state to have slightly different systems.

I don't know what the best system would look like. I think looking to what other regions have done will be invaluable. I do not think we would lift any one nation's or region's system, but would select the best elements that work here and which do not.

I think the U.S. love for having two legislative chambers will actually prove to be of benefit. That means that we can use slightly different systems for selecting representatives for each body. Since any system will be flawed, we can have chambers be flawed in different ways that help balance each other.

For example, I could see setting things up so that one chamber more represents the populace based on locality, and the other represents the populace based on ideology.

I would LOVE ranked choice voting.  I would also love to have it not be just narrowed down to a handful of rich politicians who can afford air time on major networks.  I mean, let's face it.  You either need to be super-rich to campaign, or you need to be "bought" by large donors in order to mount an actual race for office.  

I would prefer to have taxpayer dollars with oversight.  If you want to run for president and you have the qualifications (which we would need to define), great.... here's $50k for your campaign.  It must be spent on campaigning, you don't get to keep any of it for yourself, you'll be appointed an accountant to verify the spending, and anything you don't spend gets returned.  There would be multiple on-air debates where candidates would share their platforms and plans instead of misleading and polarizing political ads.  No donors, and you can't spend any of your own money.  If you want to have a rally in Iowa, great.  Buy a coach plane ticket, get a $40 permit to have an outdoor gathering on the steps of the courthouse, and host a pot luck instead of a multi-million dollar media production with Kid Rock or Taylor Swift at an arena that rents for five times what my house is worth.

That way, someone like my amazing uncle could run for the big office.  He's a retired Marine engineer with combat experience, practiced non-profit law for 30 years, and held many local offices.  I think he would make an amazing president, but he can barely afford the Camry he drives let alone a national campaign.  Our system limits who can actually have a swing at getting elected to the richest and most powerful.

Further thoughts: I'm not sure first past the post is quite the root cause of as many problems as people think. Georgia abolished first past the post over a century ago with the exception of presidential electors. You have to win an outright majority or the election goes to a runoff.

On paper, it sounds like this would encourage more third party candidates. Voters worried about throwing their vote away should be less discouraged knowing that they can pick a second choice later. That hasn't really happened. Georgia's system was really intended to protect one party rule from its own mistake by ensuring a candidate with a small but fanatical following couldn't win a crowded primary when the general election was a rubber stamp.

It's still having consequences - for example, it recently torpedoed a candidate who had a corruption scandal break between the primary and the runoff. But these are the sort of consequences you have to watch our elections closely to notice instead of our politics being very different.

I am a huge proponent of RCF.  If the electorate isn't smart enough to rank their choices, god help us.  It's time to break the two party deadlock on our system.

MadScientistMatt said:

On paper, it sounds like [Ranked Choice Voting] would encourage more third party candidates. Voters worried about throwing their vote away should be less discouraged knowing that they can pick a second choice later. That hasn't really happened. Georgia's system was really intended to protect one party rule from its own mistake by ensuring a candidate with a small but fanatical following couldn't win a crowded primary when the general election was a rubber stamp.

This is why I think the best option is to pair it with expanded governing districts that send a mix of representatives - (more) Proportional Representation.

If a district only has one representative, that seat will go to the strongest voice and will really only represent one voice. If an area has multiple representatives, you can select a number of most popular voices to represent a greater sample of ideologies and interests.

I think this is easiest with something like City Councils, which usually have a very set geography and often ~5 seats.

3rd Party candidates would benefit tremendously from RCV. I read somewhat that something like 80% of voters would rank a 3rd party choice "second" to their preferred party if they had two votes. The other 20% would "throw away" their vote. Surprisingly, this happens on actual RCV Ballots - people will only select one of many options rather than giving any other party or candidate credence. They think they are gaming the system by trying to remove potential votes from opposition candidates, which might work in areas with heavy majorities. 

At first, this would lead to a lot of 3rd Parties mucking up systems for better or worse, but over time, with more options, people would start to be more interested in who they are actually voting for. 

Another thing that I think has benefits is California's "Occupation" listing of candidates on the ballot. It's not perfect, but it does help educate voters at the polls. Adding to that idea might be that polls post a big spread of every candidates "comments" which would be limited to 50 words or 100 characters. The only requirement might that such comments could not reference another candidate.

I understand that polls should be free from campaigns and influence, but the other side of that is how uninformed most voters when they receive their ballots. 
 

Funny, I'm actually doing the same thing right now Beer Baron! My method was canvassing for my local politicians and directly asking them for advice, and using things like Run For Something and the connections I've made to start getting a base together. I can also message to you, what courses one of my candidates used for his election; he lost by only 3K votes (last time was 12K) but he has a populist mindset you might really appreciate. Don't believe people who say you can't do it on your own, or that you need to go into debt! but understand that to do so, you NEED to build a base and have a brand. You'll probably need to start a social media presence, like several years ago.

Most americans do not know what they're voting for, and now the information sphere is so poisoned that common statements like "stop lying" are basically impossible- my last candidate I canvassed for had to deal with constant "priming" attacks, where they start with the obvious culture war bullE36 M3 lie (steal your gas stove, trans people in every school, ect) but then follow it with another, but far more believable one. Basically, you need to be ready to play the dirt and meme game regardless of what you think.

As for a 3rd party- I would refer people to Secret Base's video series on the 90s Reform Party and the conclusions he reaches, which is that such a thing is going to not simply require a charter or a goal, but it also has to be a goal that the other parties cannot co-opt into their big tent. We can see this recently and not just in the video- Reform's goal of cutting the debt and deficit was answered by the dems who got America a $400million dollar surplus, The Tea Party demanded to cut government spending in response to the ACA and the republicans took it as a rallying cry to tear government apart... a 3rd party is very doable but you have to ask what group and sensibility would appeal to your party and it's new path, and would be willing to "fall into line" behind some mindset or goal. Don't forget that libertarians have already tore into themselves once on the subject of driver's licenses.

As a first step, you can add more at-large members to a council.

This allows representation both by district and by the majority of those who live in that city or town. The advantage is that it provides working majorities for effective local government. The disadvantage is that it takes a landslide to flip the council. In between is that it makes the politicians less able to carve up districts to their own advantage. 

I like proportional representation for state legislatures, it has the advantage of amplifying any change in majority of a state. 

In a proportional representation system, what would be the advantage of adding something like ranked choice or single transferable vote over "Your district has three reps - vote for three?"

Also, because someone has to post the XKCD ballot...

MadScientistMatt said:

In a proportional representation system, what would be the advantage of adding something like ranked choice or single transferable vote over "Your district has three reps - vote for three?"

I can't say for certain. I'm not sure it would be. I think both of those options are viable and would be superior to our current system.

I'm just discussing RCV as a hypothetical because it is the system I have read up on the most at this point, and can serve as an example of how easy it is to come up with a better system. I figure that if I connect with others who are looking at this issue, they will have better data on alternative options.

Quick spitballing I imagine potential issues with your multi-vote system:

It could still be gamed by clever politicking. If a party has 40%+ of the vote and fields 3 candidates, those three candidates could suck up a plurality and still hold 100% sway. Especially if another party dilutes their field with >3, or there are multiple parties with ideological overlap.

I think the biggest disadvantage of a STV/RCV is the work required on the back end. Properly distributing excess votes after a candidate has passed the quota necessary. But if you can manage that system, it would yield a more proportional representation of the population.

I love that the comic above implies that people want *anything* other than First-Past-the-Post or Top Two Primary.

Keith Tanner said:

Colorado tried to put something like this in place in the most recent election, but it failed to pass.  I'm not enough of an election nerd to give it a name.

This ballot measure would require open primaries in which candidates of all parties for state offices and federal legislative offices appear on the same ballot, with the top four vote recipients per office advancing to the general election. Ranked choice voting would be used in general elections.

Simply having more than two major parties would also go a long way towards making the system more functional. It would cut down on extremism and give people a viable third option. It also opens up the opportunity for a minority government. You see big swings in Canada's governmental composition and I think this is a big factor. There's no reason why the US can't have more than two parties, but it's ossified around two. 

Louisiana has a system that all candidates of all parties for all offices run in the election.   The top two vote getters of each office go to a runoff.

They call it The Jungle Primary because its Survival of the Fittest.   Usually the run off consists of the most Conservative vs the most Liberal candidates.  .  

jharry3 said:

Louisiana has a system that all candidates of all parties for all offices run in the election.   The top two vote getters of each office go to a runoff.

They call it The Jungle Primary because its Survival of the Fittest.   Usually the run off consists of the most Conservative vs the most Liberal candidates.  .  

This is the reason for a ranked-choice, transferable vote.

Those two get more than anyone else, but they still get a minority. For everyone else, those two are probably near the bottom of their preference. So if you begin by eliminating the candidates with the *least* votes and transferring those to the next ranked choice, you will almost certainly see more moderate candidates jump dramatically because they are favorite of few but agreeable to many.

In reply to jharry3 :

Doing the opposite of that actually gives me a crazy idea to potentially improve our choices for President:

Double-Open Primaries across the country

Both parties present a field of candidates and everyone gets to vote for their preferred candidate from BOTH fields. Currently many states only let you vote in the primary for the party you are registered as. Others let you vote in either primary, but not both.

I had a longer post written about RCV and our recent elections for city council and mayor, but I want to set aside a lot of detail to point out an example of what I see as a central benefit playing out like it suggests on the tin. Not to say that we should ignore the details or do anything without wading into them thoroughly! Just to illustrate the potential good.

Our mayor-elect was widely regarded as a distant third (EDIT: I originally phrased it "distant third between"... Gah. ) behind two "main contenders" for most of the campaign. He got half again as many votes in the first round (before any vote transfers were calculated) as the next candidate (the higher-scoring one of the Big Two), indicating to me that he wasn't just second choice to both of the main two, but in fact folks were freed from having to vote against whichever one of those they disliked more for fear of getting the "wrong one."

This is certainly what happened to me, personally, and while we're still deep in "just an anecdote" territory, I've talked to others who had the same experience. In a conventional election I'd have felt compelled to vote for the less-unsatisfactory one of the nominal contenders and we'd never have found out that enough of us wanted the eventual winner to have made it happen. RCV removed the penalty for trying to do the best thing instead of the least-worst thing.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

Not to immediately draw attention from the thing I just posted, but on the topic of double-open primaries, I feel like this seems... Gameable? Gamey? I've heard of people registering with their opposite party in order to select in the Primary what they see as a weaker candidate in hopes of defeating that party in the General. Often this means actually voting in the primary for the more-extreme candidate of the party they are generally less aligned with... Which feels wrong.

In a good-faith scenario I like the idea of being able to have a preference of candidates in each party, but I worry about how it would actually be used.