Sorry folks, but from our New Zealand experience where we have Proportional Representation, PR doesn't work too well either! The problem here is that somewhat aligned parties "gang up" to ensure that their pet policies get voted through our parliament. The end result is government decisions being made that are not supported by the majority of New Zealanders.
In my view, the nub of ALL current democracy's problems is that they are inherently breeding grounds for inequity and discontent. This is because:
Competing political parties + cyclic elections = Ongoing economic & social uncertainty
This inevitably leads to the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. I learned this lesson about 40 years ago when I rented office space in a shared office complex. Another tenant was a one-man trader in bulk fuels and chemicals. To me, his business seemed high-risk because he made tiny profit margins on financially large transactions. On one occasion, when the economy was heading downhill, I asked him if he was concerned by this. He said, “No, I don’t mind if the market is going up, or down. As long as the economy is changing and as long as I am astute, there is room for a profit for me. The times I don’t like are when the economy is static and both buyers and sellers feel comfortable with their knowledge of the market.”
Like the astute trader, the astute wealthy can take advantage of changing economic conditions by buying assets when their value is low and selling them when their value rises. The bulk of us are not skilled traders with large reserves of cash in our bank accounts. We may feel we are benefiting when the economy is improving but we are likely to suffer when there is a downturn and there is a prospect of losing our job, or our house, or both. (Or, for young people today, not even getting a first job!)
The predictable end result of fluctuating economic conditions is that wealth moves upwards. Trickledown was a con!
Regardless of how you combine political parties, unless you remove
a) the disproportionate influence of wealth
&
b) the cyclic nature of elections
You will end up with turmoil and inequitable societies.
I have some thoughts as to how these problems might be fixed, but I suspect they are a bit long to include here. I will email them to Protect Democracy who may wish to publish them as a separate post.
I'm all for proportional representation in the legislature of a country because it leads to more than two parties being heard. I think it will prevent the evils of one and two party systems. However, it is not enough to guarantee a truly representative democracy.
1. What about a truly democratically run legislature? Why not deciding on what gets debated and voted on by majority rule?
2. Does any advantage of the filibuster exist when you have a multi-partü legislature?
3. What kind of legislation needs a simple, a 3/5, 2/3 or 3/4 majority to pass?
4. Do we really need the US Senate? Most multi-party legislatures are unicameral.
5. Should the legislature be the most important branch of government and have the power to overturn executive actions and judicial decisions?
6. I think government reform should also include making the judicial branch a civil service meritocracy and the executive branch run by a president who is not chosen by parties but by the popular vote of the people (ranked choice with a runoff of the top 2) from perhaps 10 candidates chosen by an elite "electoral college" consisting say of former ambassadors, state governors and mayors of the largest cities.
Proportional Representation is good, but still produces somewhat polarized representation in Congress (though polarized in more directions than one, at least) but laws are still decided by the majority, so it can still lead to gridlock and partisan swings, etc. I also don't see it ever realistically being adopted nationwide in the US. (Maybe after a civil war or something...)
"Consensus Representation" is both easier to accomplish and elects candidates who are more ideologically similar to each other, which reduces polarization and hopefully makes them better able to get things done. This just requires adopting voting systems like STAR Voting, Consensus Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc. in each district, systems which create a multi-party democracy and elect the most broadly-appealing candidate with the highest approval rating, meaning the best representative of the feelings of the entire district, rather than a polarizing candidate who is only a representative of the majority faction in a two-party system.
An excellent article! Thanks for it. My Substack posts are very much on the same topic, Congress's Quagmire, its causes and the electoral methods changes needed. See https://www.fixfederaldebtforever.com/ Tom Mast
Sorry folks, but from our New Zealand experience where we have Proportional Representation, PR doesn't work too well either! The problem here is that somewhat aligned parties "gang up" to ensure that their pet policies get voted through our parliament. The end result is government decisions being made that are not supported by the majority of New Zealanders.
In my view, the nub of ALL current democracy's problems is that they are inherently breeding grounds for inequity and discontent. This is because:
Competing political parties + cyclic elections = Ongoing economic & social uncertainty
This inevitably leads to the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. I learned this lesson about 40 years ago when I rented office space in a shared office complex. Another tenant was a one-man trader in bulk fuels and chemicals. To me, his business seemed high-risk because he made tiny profit margins on financially large transactions. On one occasion, when the economy was heading downhill, I asked him if he was concerned by this. He said, “No, I don’t mind if the market is going up, or down. As long as the economy is changing and as long as I am astute, there is room for a profit for me. The times I don’t like are when the economy is static and both buyers and sellers feel comfortable with their knowledge of the market.”
Like the astute trader, the astute wealthy can take advantage of changing economic conditions by buying assets when their value is low and selling them when their value rises. The bulk of us are not skilled traders with large reserves of cash in our bank accounts. We may feel we are benefiting when the economy is improving but we are likely to suffer when there is a downturn and there is a prospect of losing our job, or our house, or both. (Or, for young people today, not even getting a first job!)
The predictable end result of fluctuating economic conditions is that wealth moves upwards. Trickledown was a con!
Regardless of how you combine political parties, unless you remove
a) the disproportionate influence of wealth
&
b) the cyclic nature of elections
You will end up with turmoil and inequitable societies.
I have some thoughts as to how these problems might be fixed, but I suspect they are a bit long to include here. I will email them to Protect Democracy who may wish to publish them as a separate post.
Too bad there's no money in this...
I'm all for proportional representation in the legislature of a country because it leads to more than two parties being heard. I think it will prevent the evils of one and two party systems. However, it is not enough to guarantee a truly representative democracy.
1. What about a truly democratically run legislature? Why not deciding on what gets debated and voted on by majority rule?
2. Does any advantage of the filibuster exist when you have a multi-partü legislature?
3. What kind of legislation needs a simple, a 3/5, 2/3 or 3/4 majority to pass?
4. Do we really need the US Senate? Most multi-party legislatures are unicameral.
5. Should the legislature be the most important branch of government and have the power to overturn executive actions and judicial decisions?
6. I think government reform should also include making the judicial branch a civil service meritocracy and the executive branch run by a president who is not chosen by parties but by the popular vote of the people (ranked choice with a runoff of the top 2) from perhaps 10 candidates chosen by an elite "electoral college" consisting say of former ambassadors, state governors and mayors of the largest cities.
Proportional Representation is good, but still produces somewhat polarized representation in Congress (though polarized in more directions than one, at least) but laws are still decided by the majority, so it can still lead to gridlock and partisan swings, etc. I also don't see it ever realistically being adopted nationwide in the US. (Maybe after a civil war or something...)
"Consensus Representation" is both easier to accomplish and elects candidates who are more ideologically similar to each other, which reduces polarization and hopefully makes them better able to get things done. This just requires adopting voting systems like STAR Voting, Consensus Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc. in each district, systems which create a multi-party democracy and elect the most broadly-appealing candidate with the highest approval rating, meaning the best representative of the feelings of the entire district, rather than a polarizing candidate who is only a representative of the majority faction in a two-party system.
There are some problems with this plan. For an alternative view, take a look at: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Turning-Out-the-Voters-Apathy_Politicians-Accountability_Poor-Ballot-Design_Poor-Peoples-Campaign-251217-268.html
An excellent article! Thanks for it. My Substack posts are very much on the same topic, Congress's Quagmire, its causes and the electoral methods changes needed. See https://www.fixfederaldebtforever.com/ Tom Mast
One of those things that once you see it, you can't unsee it!
But you don’t say how it would work for electing the President, only how in state legislatures…
It wouldn't be used for presidential elections, only legislative.