h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the U.S., we need to adopt a more European system, in which Congress isn't winner takes all. If 3% of the people vote Libertarian, 3% of Congress should be Libertarian, etc.

I think that idea has some promise, but I'm not sure how it would work. I think some state actually tried that for a while. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) wanted to do something like that. I think it would be nice to allow more people to be represented by someone for whom they actually voted.

First off, it would have to be done on a state by state basis unless you amended the constitution, which I would be opposed to. I see no need for that drastic a change. Still, each state could select it's representation in the House of Represenatives by some sort of proportionate vote.

The big question is how do you gove out those proportions without having the oparties select the representatives rather than the people?

The only way I can think of off of the top of my head is to have a primary, where the canidates from each party are ranked in order of how many votes they get. Then in the general election you vote for the party. The seats are doled out by each party's proportion in the vote.

So coming out of the primary you have your slate of canidates, then you have the general election. In Georgia, we have 11 seats in the House. So you need 9% of the vote to get a seat. Say the republicans get 50% of the vote, the democrats get 40% of the vote, and the libertarians get 9% of the vote, and 1% other. The republicans pick there top 5 canidates from the primary, the democrats get 4 seats, and the libertarians get one seat.

Of course, the major parties probably won't stand for it. Also, it's still quite a hill to climb. Georgia has a pretty high libertarian vote. Still, our highest percentage in the 2000 election was 6% for a public service commissioner.

I don't think that kind of system can work. You'd be voting for parties, rather than individuals, which would undermine the democratic order to House representation. The party would ultimately choose your candidate, and you would be stuck with him. People don't always vote along party lines... a staunch republican will vote for a democrat representative if he doesn't like the republican. And how would you go about assigning the Reps to the various districts? Say that California garners enough votes for libs to send three to Washington... which districts do they represent? Staunchly republican Orange County? Staunchly democratic Los Angeles County? They would end up representing people who, by and large, did not vote for them.

Of course, we could do away with districts altogether... but then, where would all the pork barrel projects go?

See I don't care for the idea of voting for parties either. The that's why I had the primaries, but I wasn't really satisfied by the way it would work.

My perference would be to do away with the districts. It would get rid of a lot of non-sense about jerrymandering.

I would like to find some way of having proportional representation where you would vote on the individual.

I have another idea, but I don't know if I could explain it, and it wouldn't work in a federal government. I doubt it could be implemented in this country at all.

It works in most of europe... which normally claims to be democratic... and no, you don't end up voting for perties - you can vote for individuals in the better systems.

Why do you need your members to represent a district? Wouldn't it be better for them to represent the people who voted for them? Isn't this the essence of what we mean by 'representation'?

I'll be chucking up a guide entry about this shortly - but don't hold your breath - work intervenes.

Well, you need a district because it's the only way to select someone who will represent your general neighborhood. The idea is that you are sending someone from among yourselves to represent... but then, somebody forgot to tell the fools in New York that, and now they've got a cuckolded redneck for a Senator.

The district would, obviously, be the people who voted for that particular candidate, which would be the essence of representation. If people in the next district over voted for him, he wouldn't represent the people in your district.

Claims to democracy and actual democracy are two different animals. America, based on its documents and government structure, can claim to be one of the most democratic nations on earth, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a government by the lawyers, of the lawyers, for the corporations.

I don't see the need for district representation either. If you're represented by someone from your state with a very similair ideology, I think you'd be much better off, unless the only work you can get is from pork barrel projects.

Can someone explain how you vote for individuals in European countries?

Depends on the system. In Germany they have UK-like: so you vote for some guy in your constituency - and then have a seperate vote which determines the nationwide makeup. So you can vote against a particular republican in your local area, but for the repubs generally. Or whatever.

In Australia you have 70 or so candidates, and you rank them all in order. This unfortunately takes a long time - and middle rankings tend to be a bit dubious - so most people think it needs a little modification - though it is better than US.

Generally the optimum seems to be for each district to return around 10 members, so you have about 30 candidates - there is a trade-off between resistance to gerrymandering and proportionality, and the numbers of candidates to vote getting too big.

How to vote varies too - Japan have single cross, Australia have a full ranking - I seem to recall that Russia has approve/disapprove. There are lots of options. They are *all* better than the US system...

In PR systems you tend to have more parties too. Whereas in UK/US systems you only have two serious parties who are almost identical, in PR systems you may have 5,10, or more. This makes for 'weaker' governments, but means there's more likely to be a serious party that accurately reflects your view point. So voting for individuals becomes less critical - though still important.

I found a lot of what you said terribly confusing... what do you mean by "single cross" and "approve/disapprove"? And how are these systems superior to the US concept? What is a PR system?

As for the ranking system, I can come up with a larger problem. If everyone is doing this nationwide, then the people who are better known to large population centers are going to be ranked the highest. In this scenario, you end up with the rural areas receiving no representation at all. The US legislature would be completely dominated by California, Texas, and New York, and poor Hawaii and New Mexico would be left without a voice.

I think the ranking system could be quite easily modified for the Aussies... out of all of those candidates, they could simply choose their favorite ten, and rank those in order. Much simpler than trying to figure out who should be your 34th favorite...

As long as we break it down by state, I think we'd do okay. If you used the system I came up with, in states with large population centers, you'd only need a few hundred thousand votes to get a seat in Congress.

I don't even think we'd have to modify the Consititution. I suspect that the states could put the system into effect by legislation on their level.

Even then, breaking it down by state, you'll still end up with huge injustices. The majority of Californians live in LA, San Fran, and San Diego. The majority of New Yorkers live in NYC and its environs. Illinois has only one population center worth mentioning, Chicago. As it stands now, people in rural areas have proportional representation, which they would lose in the case of your new system.