TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [38]  1
2

Proportional Representation in the USA: Consequences/Implications:

 26 Midnight Rambler, Mon, 14th May '12 11:53:41 AM from Germania Inferior
Pony for nothing, and your mares for free
[up][up] 'In countries with parliaments'? Congress is a parliament, isn't it?
Any sufficiently advanced technology was either invented or predicted by Nikola Tesla.
I mean to say "solely" a parliament.

For multi-party system basically what would happen to the US politics is that all those "adjective" democrat/republicans are just parties on their own because they clearly don't follow what the demo/repub do anyway.

That is, blue dog democrats would become the blue dog party, the tea party it's own party and so on.

Unchanging Avatar.
The Republicans would probably govern a coalition government the entire time, honestly. Without Blue Dogs, Democrats are kinda screwed.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
 29 Aceof Spades, Thu, 17th May '12 9:53:05 PM from The Wild Blue Yonder Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
Given general current sentiment that the Republicans fucking suck, I think that currently (currently) the Democrats might end up governing a coalition. I think a lot of people both lean farther to the left than they realize and are sick of the Republicans right now.

Frankly, we'd also have to make it illegal or something for politicians to sign pledges giving their loyalty to men like Grover Norquist and their inflexible not tax plans.
 30 drunkscriblerian, Thu, 17th May '12 9:55:08 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
Want to make the representation in America proportional? Pay the representatives a lot less than they're making now.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 31 Aceof Spades, Thu, 17th May '12 9:58:00 PM from The Wild Blue Yonder Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
I would say we'd also have to add seats to the House and Senate. It's rather lopsided to have less than five hundred people representing over thirteen million of us. Wonder what it'd take to get that taken seriously as proposal. But I do know that that would open up some seats to people who otherwise might not get a chance.
 32 Deboss, Thu, 17th May '12 10:08:37 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
I believe we're up to 330 M people now.
 33 Inhopelessguy, Thu, 17th May '12 10:20:51 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
💩💩💩💩💩&#1
Yeah, I find that odd. For a national legislature, having four-hundred odd representatives for 300 mn people is a bit... weird. Most national legislatures have similar numbers for a smaller amount of people.

Anyway, I did some number-crunching. I don't think treating the entire country as one constituency would work.

So... I came up with this!

Generally, two-thirds of the population can vote. So, 200 mn people. (electoral system: Single-Transferable Vote)

Representatives size: 800 members

Member-base: One member per 250 000 electors

District magnitude: 4 members per constituency

Population magnitude: 1 million electors per constituency

District count: 200 constituencies.

For those of you talking about how a multi-party system cannot work with a presidential system:

Well, the European Parliament is elected using PR systems, and there are a wide variety of party groups within the EP. The Commission (i.e. the Executive branch) is not pooled from the EP, but is separate from the EP.
💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
 34 Aceof Spades, Thu, 17th May '12 10:43:04 PM from The Wild Blue Yonder Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
It got stoppered somewhere around World War 2 or sometime, and afterwards only made more seats when Alaska and Hawaii were inducted as official states. And since then I guess it hasn't been a pressing issue to raise the number. In the face of all the problems facing the country, the number of our representatives hasn't been suggested at all as a way to improve things.

In fact I don't think the number of our representatives even seems like a problem at all.
Increasing the number won't really solve any of the fundamental issues, but it's still important to have proper representation. If nothing at all, bribing will cost more money when you need to bribe more people. It's a slight improvement that nobody will notice.

The big issues of super PA Cs and other funding problems are much worse. Really, PR is a way to really cut down on campaign costs. It takes what, 2 billion dollars to run a presidential campaign now? (Both sides combined)

In a PR system with local candidacy, you can do a lot less moving around, require less corporate financing and generally make it easier to vote. Just vote for who you like, or preference rank them (even better), then you never waste a vote. Then whoever gets in first, gets in first.

 36 Midnight Rambler, Fri, 25th May '12 3:44:35 PM from Germania Inferior
Pony for nothing, and your mares for free
Anyway, I did some number-crunching. I don't think treating the entire country as one constituency would work.

'Treating the entire country as one constituency' is the whole point of PR, and it's working just fine for us and many other countries, thank you very much.
Any sufficiently advanced technology was either invented or predicted by Nikola Tesla.
 37 Inhopelessguy, Fri, 25th May '12 8:43:10 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Less than three
💩💩💩💩💩&#1
Indeed, but the Benelux states and Israel aren't exactly... huge. 300 mn people spread across an entire continent as a single constituency kind of lessens the 'representative' idea.
💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
 38 Aceof Spades, Fri, 25th May '12 8:46:37 PM from The Wild Blue Yonder Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
I think the idea is that it represents political ideologies rather than specific physical locations. But, given that we're not going to change the structure of the government I don't see it happening any time soon.

It's much more likely to happen on the state level than on the federal level, in fact. The states can structure themselves however they like, and change if they desire. Nebraska switched to unicameral at some point; the fact that we're modeled after the federal level probably has to do with tradition and familiarity of the system before all these PR systems started developing over in Europe.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 38
 1
2


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy