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

Disclaimer: This topic is political. I understand if mods would prefer to remove it. However this is a meta-political issue around our system of politics and is very much not a partisan one. I am looking to find a project to get involved in, not try to sway any person's political leanings.

Please, I hope we can keep this productive and non-partisan.

The Topic:

I want to get involved in politics on a meta-level. I believe strongly that all of us in this nation would be better served by a system of Proportional Representation. I think our current system of First-Past-the-Post, Winner-Take-All legislative districts causes a whole host of problems and leads to the overall dissatisfaction and frustration with our political system. I think reforming the way we handle elections is the first, critical step to fixing this. I think it needs to happen first at local and then state levels.

I'm tired of sitting back and being frustrated. I want to get involved to try to make things better.

I am in Columbus, Ohio and would like to find a group working to reform the system and get involved.

Does anyone know of or have connections with groups working to get proportional representation systems they could connect me with?

Anyone here who has gotten involved in politics or other political causes that can offer general guidance or advice?

I welcome direct messages for people who are concerned they might start and argument.

For those less familiar with the concept of Proportional Representation - variations on this theme are what the overwhelming majority of other modern democracies use now.

The rough idea is that, if a party or group gets a certain percentage of votes, that is roughly the number of legislative seats they should hold. That there is theoretically room for smaller parties that can hold a few seats and join in coalitions with larger parties.

Our current system is one where you have numerous legislative districts with set boundary lines that get one vote. Whichever party gets the most votes in that district gets one legislative seat. It doesn't matter if they get 50.1% or 90% of the votes. It's one seat.

Proportional representation takes a larger area and gives it multiple legislative seats. Elections are held and seats are distributed among candidates based on numbers of votes.

A common form of this is Single Transferrable Vote, Ranked-Choice Voting. It is used in places like Ireland and Australia. Here is a good 2-minute video explaining how that works:

Start locally. There are many offices that go un-opposed every election. Run for office?

One big issue I suspect you will run into when trying to change the "system" is that those who are in power in the system are the ones that have the power to change it.  They are also the ones that have benefited from it and have no motivation to change it.

But, good luck to you.  Fight the fight.  I don't envy you for what you are likely to encounter.

one of the towns near me moved to "rank choice" which i know isn't exactly the same but is similar in that you rank all of the people being considered for a board...  So starting locally is a good idea.  

https://www.oakpark.com/2024/11/06/oak-park-ranked-choice-voting-approved/

Its not the same as what you're considering but it is similar.  I think the problems with these things is that it minimizes the voice of special interest groups and extreme agenda politicians, those are the folks who tend to be the most vocal and would dissuade others from seeing the value of these alternative voting strategies.  

In reply to aircooled :

I know. It is an uphill battle. I believe it deserves to be fought. I believe this is the sort of movement that will take a lot of time an energy to eventually be accepted as mainstream the way other more controversial movements have.

Ohio has a proposition system where referenda can be put to the general populace for direct democracy. My hope is that this could be an easier sell to the general populace than the attempts at anti-gerrymandering law have been.

I agree with the notion of starting locally/regionally.

This election our mayor and city council were selected via ranked choice as a result of a measure in the previous election.

Another measure which would have moved much more of the state's voting process to ranked choice failed this time, but I'm hopeful that once the state sees it actually in use there will be more appetite to expand it. And that expansion I think is the best hope for eventually seeing it nationally. I think it's entirely reasonable that folks wanted to see the results of the local version before expansion.

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. 

Jesse Ransom said:

I agree with the notion of starting locally/regionally.

Which gets to the big question of HOW?

How do I find a group working on this sort of project in my locale/region?

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

You are in Columbus, OH and so is Vivek.  I'm not this politically involved but I'd probably start there.  Even if he is not your man, he seems open to "another way" and could likely at least point you to people who like your format.

What I want is an issue/candidate matrix system. You go down a list of issues and beliefs, checking boxes as you go, and the results are tabulated to pick from a LARGE pool of candidates who cannot do any marketing or reveal themselves beforehand. If the majority of people pick trickle-down economics, pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-immigration, pro-environment, then so be it. 

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. 

I really dislike the current system. Presidential primaries especially. It should be on the same day, in every state. Iowa/NH/whoever should not be weeding out the candidates 6 months before any other state.

I think the entire concept of political parties is unnecessary at this point, in this information age. Every candidate should be independent, able to put forth THEIR agenda, platform and qualifications. Every bill should be proposed and voted on for it's own merits. 

Beer Baron 🍺 said:

Jesse Ransom said:

I agree with the notion of starting locally/regionally.

Which gets to the big question of HOW?

How do I find a group working on this sort of project in my locale/region?

https://www.rankthevoteohio.org/

If that's not specific enough or at odds with the changes you're looking to see, they may still be a good first stop for info? I imagine their apparent goal to untangle things would make them happy to help point you to a better aligned group or people even if they aren't what you're looking for?

In reply to Jesse Ransom :

Thank you! That is exactly the sort of recommendation I'm looking for.

Looks like their goal isn't exactly what I'm thinking, but would be a solid step in that direction. And if not, they would be most likely to know of other groups looking to do exactly what I'm hoping for.

When the nation is nearly evenly divided, nearly half the people become dissatisfied with the outcome.

Ranked choice voting is not the answer.

https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-a-disaster-in-disguise/#

OHSCrifle said:

Start locally. There are many offices that go un-opposed every election. Run for office?

Just as important, you can change the procedure locally, too.

As they say, all politics are local.

Proportional representation sounds like a good idea, but is unworkable in practice for some very important reasons. A proportion is a ratio. To have a ratio, you need to define the terms. What do you want a ratio of? If you want a ratio based on support for each party, you are trying to use terms not defined by our system of government- your ratio is trying to  divide by zero. Political parties are private groups meant to help voters consolidate political power. They are not part of the government. We vote in primaries held by those parties to tell them who we would prefer represent that party, but they are under no obligation to choose whoever wins the most votes, they can choose whoever they want. To portion representation based of the proportion of votes, we would have to do one of two things.

1) Reassign some positions won by one candidates from one party to losers from the other party. 
 

2) Vote for party instead of candidates, and then do the primary (now called a secondary?) after it's determined how many positions the party won. There is no mechanism in our government for this. Maybe a constitutional amendment? I don't know if that would even fly, because now private parties would be playing a critical role in the function of our government. We vote for people, not parties.  
 

Either way, you can see why that's not going to happen. 
 

On the propositions. They are a good idea in theory, not so much in practice. We have a representative democracy for a reason. Straight democracy is just a nice sounding version of mob rule. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

This is one of those things where pretty much every other developed nation has figured out a way to make it work, so surely we can too.

The video I shared earlier about Single Transferable Vote addresses many of these issues. If we were to adopt a system like that it might look something like...

I will use Ohio as an example because I live here. There are 99 members in the Ohio State House of Representatives - 99 districts each with one member. You could just take groups of three contiguous districts and roll them up together into 33 larger districts with 3 representatives each. When you go to vote, instead of a ballot with 2 or 3 candidates (perhaps a 3rd party with no winning chance). You would get a ballot with 6+ candidates that you rank your preferences of. Based on order of preference, 3 total seats are assigned.

This is not perfect and would not result in exact representation of percentages by party, but in practice results in something that is much more proportional. It has several other big benefits: Gerrymandering becomes much less effective, 3rd party candidates have a viable chance, you can vote for better options within preferred party if you want someone out.

Not perfect, but certainly better than we have.

Many states have mechanisms for the people to amend their state constitutions to make changes like this. This is why I'd start at smaller scales rather than aiming at the Federal level to start.

I'll try to stay within the boundaries of what this (awesome and amazing forum) allow. 

Please do your research on which party and which set of voters will be open to ranked choice voting. You'll be more successful speaking to those people than fighting an uphill battle with the wrong set of voters.

This article gives a pretty good overview of who is more accepting of ranked choice voting and who is actively fighting it. 

Also, if alternate democratic systems are you kink, check out sortition...

1988RedT2 said:

When the nation is nearly evenly divided, nearly half the people become dissatisfied with the outcome.

The nation is only 'nearly evenly divided' when selectively looking through the heavily distorted lens of the 2-party system. In reality, it's anything but.

Our government is not representative of (by, or for) the moderate majority that effectively have zero true representation available to them, all thanks to the naturally escalating polarization inherent to a 2-party system. The 2-party system forcibly inverts the perception of the bell curve.

The growing bias (and declining balance) of media sources is but another great example of the detrimental long-term effects of the growing division artificially created by the 2-party system.

Italy is a great example.  There are so many political parties that no one ever has a majority, so they have to make deals, so absolutely nothing ever gets done.

This is the best thing for a government to do.

Boost_Crazy said:

Proportional representation sounds like a good idea, but is unworkable in practice for some very important reasons.

Proportional representation is quite literally the most popular form of Democracy, worldwide.

From: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-many-countries-around-the-world-use-proportional-representation/

As of 2022 Ranked Choice Voting has been used successfully in 62 different jurisdictions in the US in addition to multiple primary elections. It's also used in Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. 

From: https://www.rcvresources.org/where-is-rcv-used/

Always best to do some quick googling before getting started.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

This is one of those things where pretty much every other developed nation has figured out a way to make it work, so surely we can too.
 

But we aren't other nations. We currently have no provision for that type of proportional representation, and as I said It would take a constitutional amendment to implement it. Eve then I'm not sure that would stick. 

The video I shared earlier about Single Transferable Vote addresses many of these issues. If we were to adopt a system like that it might look something like...
 

I will use Ohio as an example because I live here. There are 99 members in the Ohio State House of Representatives - 99 districts each with one member. You could just take groups of three contiguous districts and roll them up together into 33 larger districts with 3 representatives each. When you go to vote, instead of a ballot with 2 or 3 candidates (perhaps a 3rd party with no winning chance). You would get a ballot with 6+ candidates that you rank your preferences of. Based on order of preference, 3 total seats are assigned.

You are taking about two different things. Ranked choice, which is allowed in elections in some states. That is not the same thing proportional representation, though I see how you combined them in your example. Back to your example, your 99 districts is already an example of proportional representation, since each area gets it's own representative. I fail to see how rolling those 99 districts into larger districts with less representatives would result in more diversity of representation. It seems to me that would more likely give the dominate party more control, not less. The way to do it (that some other countries use) is that you register for one party or the other. The registration is a pre vote, that determines how many seats that party gets. If there are 100 seats, party A has 55% of the voters, B has 40% and C has 5%, then 55 seats are reserved for A candidates, 40 for B, and 5 for C. That sounds like a really tough task to change the balance over time, and what about those who don't wish to affiliate with a party? 
 

This is not perfect and would not result in exact representation of percentages by party, but in practice results in something that is much more proportional. It has several other big benefits: Gerrymandering becomes much less effective, 3rd party candidates have a viable chance, you can vote for better options within preferred party if you want someone out.

Not perfect, but certainly better than we have.

 

 

By what metric do you measure that to be better?  It looks to me like the above example would result in a less flexible, more locked in form of government. I think you are looking at a snapshot of other countries in one moment in time, thinking it looks better. You are missing the affects that system has over time. To you, it looks like more equal representation. To the people in those countries belonging to parties with less seats, it may look like being the perpetual underdog. At least here, any one election can have any result. We see that frequently. If one party goes too far, the other is there to take control. It's self regulating in the long run, even if you don't like the short term results. If one party knew how much power they would have coming out of the election before a single vote was cast or a candidate was chosen,

 I don't think that would be a good thing, my party or not.  

Personally, I think getting rid of the "winner take all" approach for the electoral college would be a good starting point for modifying the current system. 

Let each congressional districts vote go the way of the voters in that district, instead of letting the urban center override the vote of the rural areas. 

That would increase the potential a 3rd party candidate could get some electoral college votes and start to make alternate parties viable. 
 

The other idea I think is great is: