05/04/2009 07:33:47 PM EST

What if the United States had proportional representation?

posted by charlesf

The great majority of democracies feature some form of proportional representation. The first-past-the-post electoral system however governs the US political landscape and to a lesser extent Britain's - though the UK's elections for the European parliament, the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh parliaments use a mixed system.

So, how would the US political landscape look like with proportional representation (and with say a 5% hurdle parties would have to meet to be represented in Congress)?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

My take:

I'd say you'd end up with six viable parties:

Greens (5-10%)

Progressives (similar to British Labour; Feingold, Ted Kennedy types, 15-20%)

Moderates (similar to European Christian-Democrats; Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Ben Nelson types, 20-30%)

Libertarians (Ron Paul followers & Co, 5-10%)

Conservatives* (Religious Right, authoritarian and neo-conservative instincts; 20-25%)

Right-wing radicals (similar to Le Pen's Front National, Tancredo, Savage, militia and vigilante movement, secessionists; 10-15%)

 

Agree?

I'd say that the GOP would basically fracture into (Social) Conservatives and Right-wing radicals - plus some joining the Libertarian party and a meagre few moderates go and join the largely Democratic in origin moderate party. The Reagan coalition would fall apart.

The Democratic big tent would split into moderates and progressives, with some going off to join the Greens.

Hard to say where Obama would end up. He kinda straddles the moderate and progressive/liberal camps.

I dare say the US would be usually governed either by a Moderate-Progressive-Green coalition or a Conservative-Libertarian-Mo derate coalition. But who knows, a Conservative-Rightwing Radical coalition (think the Israeli Likud-Lieberman coalition) might at times also gain a majority.

 

< What the GOP ought to do | gift to my Dad >
 Display:
What if the United States had proportional representation? | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
Well (none / 1)
Conservatives/Republicans have excessive influence in the Senate because less populated states are generally red, yet they still get 2 Senators.

by Tom Hanc on 05/04/2009 09:26:20 PM EST

texas looks pretty big to me... (none / 0)

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 09:38:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
So does California, that doesn't change the point about the net effect overall.

by Tom Hanc on 05/04/2009 09:41:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well, (none / 0)
we tried representational government.  When we drew up the constitution, it required the signature of 9/13 states (at the time, they were states under the articles of confederation).  the new jersey plan was to give every state one vote in legislature.  The Virginia plan was to give votes based on population(notice that Virginia is a large state among the other original 13.  also notice that jersey is small)  they needed to compromise and form our current 2 house legislature in order to get the signatures of 9 out of 13 states.

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 09:57:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't suggest an alternative (none / 1)
I just made an observation that's rarely discussed.

by Tom Hanc on 05/04/2009 10:04:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
its rarely discussed (none / 0)
because (almost) everyone knows that california is big.  It's like stating that the ocean is wet or that George W. Bush is stupid.

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 10:07:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh THAT observation (none / 0)

ok nevermind, I thought you were talking about cali being big...

yeah, they do have a lot of influence in the senate.  but thats good... it keeps the state's influence and gives more power to the actual state.

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 10:09:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say it's flat out good (none / 0)

"Mixed bag" might be more accurate.

;)

by Tom Hanc on 05/04/2009 10:16:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It prevents (none / 0)
the oppression of smaller states over large states.  It is inconvenient for the democrats, but it is necessary in order to have a republic made up of separate states

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 10:23:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 1)
A good principle, but not the best thing for progressive ideals. Again, a mixed bag unless you're a conservative in which case you love it all around.

by Tom Hanc on 05/04/2009 10:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
typo... (none / 0)
shoulda been "oppression of smaller states by larger states"

by birdboy1 on 05/04/2009 10:30:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I guess its good (none / 0)
that the smaller states aren't controlled by larger ones.

by nmaks on 05/04/2009 09:43:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)

To do what you are asking would require to completly change how we vote for congress, doing this for the senate isnt even possible.

  We can't get a paper trail on electronic voting machines, or get machinces that work even and you want to redo the entire system?

by mattish on 05/05/2009 12:45:01 AM EST

My take (none / 0)
I'm not necessarily ASKING for proportional representation. Just musing how it'd change the US party landscape.

by charlesf on 05/05/2009 02:14:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
washed up (none / 0)
Just what we need , Give the bigger is better  more say in government.
What makes you think the nuts and fruits in these bigger states like tex, cal, new york are going in the right way to make this a better usa to live in.
 The Usa whould take a big step back even if we tried to go that way, And if it happen it whould send us the rest of the way down the drain.

by tuna on 05/06/2009 06:06:53 AM EST

What if the United States had proportional representation? | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: