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

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I've been having similar thoughts. There are even better systems than ranked choice voting though, like STAR voting and approval voting:

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Approval_methods

https://electowiki.org/wiki/STAR_voting

It's terrible that so many countries are stuck with FPTP which is like Babby's First Electoral System. The two-party stranglehold that tends to result due to Duverger's law has all kinds of terrible effects and introduces some huge vulnerabilities as well.

aircooled said:

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.

This is a real problem. Eventually you'll reach a point where you have to ask at least one of the big 2 parties in any FPTP system to essentially sign their own death warrant by improving the electoral system so that people will no longer have any reason to strategically vote for them. I think the only way to get that change through might be to run a single-issue party that exists only to overhaul the electoral system as quickly as possible and then call another election, and kick any issues down the road for that period that they can, and implement very centrist solutions to any issues that they can't delay, in order to minimize the reasons that anyone of any political persuasion would have to not vote for that party. This could overpower Duverger's law and get a majority to vote on improving how they vote.

Our current Prime Minister had the promise of adopting proportional representation as part of his campaign.

Once he was in office, because of first-past-the-post voting, he dropped all of that.

Who could have seen that coming?

i have always had this fantasy, if I ever find a genie one of my wishes would be that the minute you take an oath of public office you can never lie again. 

in the end, I don't know if that would be a good or bad thing if politicians were never allowed to lie.  

We're talking about overhauling the system that has worked rather well for the past few centuries?  To me it seems it's the people of the past 20ish years (both in politics and the ones supporting/voting for them) that are broken.  That's quite a deep issue....

I am talking about both Proportional Representation and Ranked Choice. Those are different things. But Ranked Choice is an integral element of the Single Transferable Vote system which is the method of PR that I understand best.

At this point in time, I am not arguing that STV is *the* correct answer and will be doing more research into what system is best. I am using it as an example to show how it and other systems would be better than the current Winner Takes All.

The goal is not "perfect" the goal is "good".

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

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. 

No. It would not take a FEDERAL constitutional amendment.

I am talking about making changes at the local levels first. Amending how city councils are elected as a proof of concept. Then expanding to state legislatures. That would require state level Amendments which many states have mechanisms for the people to do directly.

Only then would I expect to turn attention to the U.S. Federal Congress. Even then, it is potentially in the power of states to decide how they select their representatives to congress. A lot of power for managing elections is in the states hands.

I think this is a change that would happen gradually with *one* state changing how they send electors. Then others following suit until there is a critical mass.

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.

That's not what I described. The total number of representatives remains the same. Instead of 99 districts with 1 representative each (99 * 1 = 99), you would have 33 districts with 3 electors each (33 * 3 = 99).

This would not get you perfect proportional representation, but would get you a more proportional representation.

As things stand... take a hypothetically deeply red area of 3 districts. All three will be solidly majority red. But even there, do you think they are 100% red party? Maybe they're only ~2/3 red party. Perhaps the final 1/3 isn't blue, but is Libertarian. Immediately you open up the opportunity for a 3rd party that will agree with the red party on some issues and the blue on others.

This also diminishes the effect Gerrymandering which is a major problem here in Ohio and other states.

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

We're talking about overhauling the system that has worked rather well for the past few centuries?  To me it seems it's the people of the past 20ish years (both in politics and the ones supporting/voting for them) that are broken.  That's quite a deep issue....

I maintain that the greatest wisdom the drafters of our constitution had was that they knew they didn't have all the answers. They knew society would change in ways they could never foresee, and it would be up to future generations to keep things running.

My grandfather was a U.S. congressman who served three terms in the late 70's. Even then, he was greatly dissatisfied with the way elections were handled and believed that the majority of the voting public was being cheated out of meaningful voting options.

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

We're talking about overhauling the system that has worked rather well for the past few centuries?  To me it seems it's the people of the past 20ish years (both in politics and the ones supporting/voting for them) that are broken.  That's quite a deep issue....

I agree. Maybe some tweaking to compensate for biases created by population distribution and size, but overall the concept isn't bad.

It's the career politicians, social media, mainstream media, and relaxation of the campaign contribution rules that have contributed to the current situation. 

Sure, gerrymandering is an issue, but I believe that has more impact on local elections but is part of the noise in national races.

The use of AI and other algorithms to limit and focus the content people see online helps deepen the division. FB, Insta, X, and others can focus content to bias what voters see. These companies get away with doing the something that would cause major concern if it was an outside actor (china, Russia)  

GameboyRMH said:

This is a real problem. Eventually you'll reach a point where you have to ask at least one of the big 2 parties in any FPTP system to essentially sign their own death warrant by improving the electoral system so that people will no longer have any reason to strategically vote for them. I think the only way to get that change through might be to run a single-issue party that exists only to overhaul the electoral system as quickly as possible and then call another election, and kick any issues down the road for that period that they can, and implement very centrist solutions to any issues that they can't delay, in order to minimize the reasons that anyone of any political persuasion would have to not vote for that party. This could overpower Duverger's law and get a majority to vote on improving how they vote.

Ohio has a Proposition system where independent groups can propose legal changes that are put to a direct vote by the public at large. This is what was used to pass things like legalizing recreational marijuana.

I know many other states have similar systems.

In reply to No Time :

Maybe this is not the best idea. Maybe this is not the right time. I honestly do not know.

But I believe that there is a better way forward, and that the right thing is for me to work towards a goal I sincerely believe in rather than sit complacently and complain about how I wish the system were better and someone should do something about it.

I am someone, and I know there are others out there like me.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

I'm not saying "don't try to make changes", I think there is value is working to make things better. The key to gaining momentum is small measurable changes that people can see have an impact.

I also think there are issues beyond the way we vote that will undermine any voting method if not addressed. 

Starting local is great and focusing on local or state regulations is a place where changes could be made. 

As an example, if a ballot question could pass to change how electoral college votes are allocated, even without changing how votes are counted, in a Presidential election could help produce a better representation of the voters choices.  

Using 2020 as an example, the voices of voters in several congression districts were drowned out by other area of the state. The maps show results by congressional district, and even though though there were areas of support for both parties, only one was represented at the electoral college level. 
 

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.

In reply to No Time :

I agree on effectively all points.

I am choosing this issue because I want to reform how legislators are selected. I want to open up viable avenues for 3rd+ parties. I think this is the best way. I think that will make politics and discourse less polarized and make congress less dysfunctional.

If congress does its job better, it becomes less critical who the president is, because we are not looking to them to do congress' job for them.

In reply to Driven5 :

It's like a religion, "the ancients and sacred texts know all!"

Driven5 said:

Why does there seem to be this baseline assumption that the way something was implemented 200 years ago was done so because they were so much more enlightened and intelligent than anybody there after 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 expected those that followed them to do?

200 years ago they built a house for us to live in. It's a good house. It's still standing and weathering storms. It shouldn't be torn down.

But the best way to avoid tearing it down will be to refit it with modern plumbing and add in a proper electrical system that is up to the latest code. That'll actually make it likely the house will *stay* standing because it's less likely to burn down.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

And while asbestos may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it would probably be wise to address that sooner than later too.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

If we aren't talking about federal elections, then of course it won't take a constitutional amendment. But I thought you were talking about  federal representation. If you are just talking about local and state, yes, you just need to work within those systems. That's why we have 50 states, each state has the opportunity to decide how it wants to run it's state government. There are many different ideas in place right now, and many more that have been tried in the past. I can definitely see the appeal of ranked choice, and it is in place in many areas now. I'm not a fan of ranked choice primaries, where the result can be less diversity in representation. Often two candidates from the same party face each other in the end. Not only is the minority not represented, but there is value to even being the losing side in an election and having your voice heard. 
 

That's not what I described. The total number of representatives remains the same. Instead of 99 districts with 1 representative each (99 * 1 = 99), you would have 33 districts with 3 electors each (33 * 3 = 99).
 

I'm sorry, can you please explain this again? I'm not understanding the reasoning or benefit as described. If my state were divided up into 99 districts, and my district voted for a representative, then I'd expect that rep would be closely tied to the wants and needs of my small district. If my district were were combined with two others, would that not dilute my representation? Sure you kept the numbers the same, but they cover a larger area and now it's 3 people to point fingers and pass the buck? How does that benefit me as a voter? It sounds backwards to me. I don't think this is an example of proportional representation, it's just consolidating the same representation, and risks making it less proportional if anything. 

In reply to Driven5 :

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.
 

Because to make that determination, you first need to separate out the original implementation and the 200 years of changes that we have now. Much of the government that we experience is far from what was originally implemented, for better or worse. Our system was set up so that it can be changed, but it's purposely difficult change to avoid wild knee jerk swings. It allows for drift one way or the other, with the expectation that it will self correct back towards the middle. It's not that the people were more enlightened or intelligent, it was that they were enlightened and intelligent enough to create a system that was strong enough to endure yet malleable enough to adapt.  To not just survive for 200 years- no small feat- but become the backbone of the strongest and most prosperous nation in history in a short period of time. Most importantly, they understood that the greatest threat to the government was the government itself. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

If we aren't talking about federal elections, then of course it won't take a constitutional amendment. But I thought you were talking about  federal representation. If you are just talking about local and state, yes, you just need to work within those systems.

I'm talking about multiple things. Think of it like have a 1 year, 3 year, and 10 year plan (although not necessarily that timeline.) Starting small and achievable first to build momentum for larger change.

So I am thinking of first working to reform local and state systems for now. With the hope that in the future we might change how one or a few individual states choose their members for the U.S. House or Rep. With bigger changes farther down the road.

I'm sorry, can you please explain this again? I'm not understanding the reasoning or benefit as described. If my state were divided up into 99 districts, and my district voted for a representative, then I'd expect that rep would be closely tied to the wants and needs of my small district. If my district were were combined with two others, would that not dilute my representation? Sure you kept the numbers the same, but they cover a larger area and now it's 3 people to point fingers and pass the buck? How does that benefit me as a voter? It sounds backwards to me. I don't think this is an example of proportional representation, it's just consolidating the same representation, and risks making it less proportional if anything. 

Valid critiques.

[Edit - Concise answer] If you live in Ohio where I am focusing, you live in a Gerrymandered district designed to keep one party in power there. You have an entrenched candidate with no viable avenue to replace them. If you are in the minority in that district, your representative simply does not and will not represent your interests. Even if you are in the majority block, your representative still doesn't have to worry about being accountable to you. If they displease you, what are you going to do? Vote for "The Other Team"? Throw your vote away on a third party? They know you will continue to vote for them as long as they are the "lesser evil".

Expanding the scope means that previously disenfranchised minority gets a voice, and those in the majority or plurality now have meaningful choices that allow them to express true preference.

[Original full answer - ]

First off, I'm not necessarily saying this is the plan I want to push for. Just an example of a hypothetical plan that would be better. That said, I still think this would be better than the current system for a lot of reasons.

It *is* a compromise. It would make representatives tied to a larger geographical area, but I think would still be small enough to be manageable. Ohio divides up the same populace into only 15 federal seats.

As for how it benefits you as a voter. Let's say all three districts vote firmly for Party A by roughly 65%. That means all three of those districts will always go to Party A. If you are in the 33% that votes for Party B, or the 2% who votes C, you will *never* get a representative who represents your interests. You will have three options that do not matter because the winner will always be the same entrenched member of Party A.

If you lump these three together and use a Ranked Choice, Single Transferable Vote system (see the video from the start of the thread) you might then get a ballot with 3 (or 4) members of Party A, 3 from Party B, and one from Party C. The result will most likely be that Party A holds 2 seats, but now those previously disenfranchised 35% will be able to select the candidate from Party B or C that they all best agree on.

Let's even say that you've been okay with this situation before now. You are a moderate-A voter or an A-leaning moderate. You hate Party B and will never vote for them. But you don't really care for your Party A candidate. They are too extremist and entrenched. But what are you going to do? You dislike Party B and won't vote for them. You are okay with Party C, but it's a throwaway vote. This system benefits you. That extreme-A you don't like... you can make a meaningful vote for someone else. You can cast a ranked vote for candidates A2, A3, and C before A1. You can vote in a fresher more moderate perspective from the party you prefer but do not love.

Even if you preferred Party A, your representative now has to be more accountable to you because there is a viable path for you to replace them.

And in the case of Ohio... our electoral districts are HORRIBLY Gerrymandered. This also solves that problem.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Driven5 :

...Our system was set up so that it can be changed, but it's purposely difficult change to avoid wild knee jerk swings. ... It's not that the people were more enlightened or intelligent, it was that they were enlightened and intelligent enough to create a system that was strong enough to endure yet malleable enough to adapt. ...

Exactly.

Change should be difficult, but it is often beneficial. I believe this is one of those changes that deserves the justafiably hard work it will take to see happen.

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

As for how it benefits you as a voter. Let's say all three districts vote firmly for Party A by roughly 65%. That means all three of those districts will always go to Party A. If you are in the 33% that votes for Party B, or the 2% who votes C, you will *never* get a representative who represents your interests. You will have three options that do not matter because the winner will always be the same entrenched member of Party A.

If you lump these three together and use a Ranked Choice, Single Transferable Vote system (see the video from the start of the thread) you might then get a ballot with 3 (or 4) members of Party A, 3 from Party B, and one from Party C. The result will most likely be that Party A holds 2 seats, but now those previously disenfranchised 35% will be able to select the candidate from Party B or C that they all best agree on.

Let's even say that you've been okay with this situation before now. You are a moderate-A voter or an A-leaning moderate. You hate Party B and will never vote for them. But you don't really care for your Party A candidate. They are too extremist and entrenched. But what are you going to do? You dislike Party B and won't vote for them. You are okay with Party C, but it's a throwaway vote. This system benefits you. That extreme-A you don't like... you can make a meaningful vote for someone else. You can cast a ranked vote for candidates A2, A3, and C before A1. You can vote in a fresher more moderate perspective from the party you prefer but do not love.

Even if you preferred Party A, your representative now has to be more accountable to you because there is a viable path for you to replace them.

I see what you are trying to do. You want to use the ranked voting to proportion the number of seats. But to do that, you need to more centralize power in order for the minority "losing" votes to consolidate into seats. I get the idea, but I still see some problems. The main benefit of having 99 districts instead of 33 is that the representatives are where their constituents are. Once you start combining districts, you lose much of that. Also just to point out the obvious- the losing party is losing because their ideas are not as popular in the area. Sure, it may suck for you if you are on the losing side, but why would the winning side want to give away their representation? They won after all. And I say this with a deep sympathy for those in in the losing situation, as I live in one of the most one sided areas of the country. For now. But I've been around to know that wasn't always the case, and I know enough to realize it won't always be the case. As much as it may benefit me now, I know that the current system works and changing it to suit my current situation could have negative future implications. For example, those currently in power own the results in my one sided situation. If they are doing great- well, maybe they should be in charge. If not, they won't stay in power, as history has shown. Giving the loser more power would likely just keep them out of arms reach in perpetuity. 

In reply to Beer Baron 🍺 :

Exactly.

Change should be difficult, but it is often beneficial. I believe this is one of those changes that deserves the justafiably hard work it will take to see happen.
 

But- do you believe this because you are unhappy with the current situation and recent results? Would you still believe this if the roles were reversed? Often a party in power has used their role to expand their power or diminish their opposition, only to regret it when the balance swings the other way. 
 

Boost_Crazy said:

I see what you are trying to do. You want to use the ranked voting to proportion the number of seats. But to do that, you need to more centralize power in order for the minority "losing" votes to consolidate into seats. I get the idea, but I still see some problems. The main benefit of having 99 districts instead of 33 is that the representatives are where their constituents are. Once you start combining districts, you lose much of that. Also just to point out the obvious- the losing party is losing because their ideas are not as popular in the area. Sure, it may suck for you if you are on the losing side, but why would the winning side want to give away their representation? They won after all. And I say this with a deep sympathy for those in in the losing situation, as I live in one of the most one sided areas of the country. For now. But I've been around to know that wasn't always the case, and I know enough to realize it won't always be the case. As much as it may benefit me now, I know that the current system works and changing it to suit my current situation could have negative future implications. For example, those currently in power own the results in my one sided situation. If they are doing great- well, maybe they should be in charge. If not, they won't stay in power, as history has shown. Giving the loser more power would likely just keep them out of arms reach in perpetuity. 

A perfect solution does not exist. This is just less imperfect than the current situation. It's also hypothetical.

The representatives would still be where their constituents are. It would just cover a larger area. It is a balancing act of regions being big enough to have enough seats to represent a plurality of views, but small enough to still be regionally accountable. I think that number is somewhere between 3-5 seats.

Under the current system of winner-take-all...

So one position is less popular. That means it doesn't deserve to be heard at all? The more popular position would still be heard. Its voice would remain louder.

In a one-sided situation like your's, or a heavily Gerrymandered one like Ohio... those representatives do NOT need to worry about owning their bad policies. They just need to be "the lesser evil".

Boost_Crazy said:

But- do you believe this because you are unhappy with the current situation and recent results? Would you still believe this if the roles were reversed? Often a party in power has used their role to expand their power or diminish their opposition, only to regret it when the balance swings the other way. 

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.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

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.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The thing that tipped me over the edge was a podcast, "The Future of Our Former Democracy". It is about how Northern Ireland reformed its electoral system in the 90's, ending decades of The Troubles.