UCLAri

Whether we like it or not, the US's majoritarian (or first past the post, if you will) system of electing politicians leads to great disparity between vote share and seat share. It's pretty much guaranteed to occur.

Now, many other systems in the world have changed their rules (New Zealand comes to mind) to fit more modern models of how votes should translate into representation. The US and a few other countries, however, still stick to antiquated Westminster relics.

I'm not a real expert on electoral politics, but I can say this much: the US could use some reform. How many CCers would be opposed to a proportional system of election? Or maybe something mixed, like Japan or New Zealand?

All I know is that this is something that affects us a great deal and receives not nearly enough attention.

Thoughts?

Decent primer on other types of systems

firewalker

Mmmh, I've often argued that same position in my classes. If we can vote for governors, we sure as hell can do the same for other state and national officials.

UCLAri

I'm not talking about who we VOTE FOR, but HOW we vote FOR THEM.

In other words, how my vote translates into seats.

I'd actually like to see fewer elected seats in California. Many many fewer.

firewalker

Proportionality would be preferred to the current system; however I would argue that we can directly elect state and national officials the same way we elect governors...

UCLAri

Well, I'm all for abolishing the Electoral College (or requiring that it be bound to vote in whomever wins the most votes nationally.) But I'm a bit more concerned with the fact that 34% vote share can translate into 45% of seats in the US. This disproportionality is really quite troubling considering that we've since developed systems that can reduce much of it.

firewalker

I would say thats reasonable.

wayupsts

We need to get rid of gerrymandering, we need to have independent panel of judges draw the line. It almost passed in California last year.

UCLAri

gerrymandering is a relatively minor issue when compared to how votes translate into seats.

Furthermore, in an MMM or MMP system, gerrymandering becomes an increasingly less important issue.

wayupsts

It’s never going to fly, the democrats and republicans don’t want to give up any power at all, and that’s inside and outside the hall of congress.

Gerrymandering is a much more obtainable goal for some.
Additionally, if changing gerrymandering is so hard why would MMM ever be poss. here.

UCLAri

MMM can actually benefit large parties. Look at the Japanese example.

I actually think that some gerrymandered districts are for the better. Some minority districts may actually WANT to be all goofy in their lines because it means that they get a more representative legislator.

Of course, YMMV...

wayupsts

I agree with you I think it would be a great step in US politics and legislation if we adopted this. However, even in if, it became a benefit to the big parties, there would still be a bunch of people who would resist change in their gov't, you would need a very progressive nation to change.

good job for spreading the word

shastarasta

Why abolish something that has worked. Electoral votes get greater with population. California has the greatest population, therefore the greatest amount of electoral votes. I think a disproportion of votes gives greater excitement to the Presidential elections.

UCLAri

shastarasta,

Because it allows for the election of presidents who actually don't receive the most popular votes.

And it encourages really weird campaigning strategies.

shastarasta

You can't tell me those weird campaigns aren't humorous!!

firewalker

Way to keep a scholarly tone.