Texas Redistricting
The Frog
Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
Republicans:
1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
5) More Texans registered as Republicans
Why would anyone believe that the district map that was imposed on
Texas by the courts reflects Texans' political will?
Why can't the people of Texas draw their own map?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Q
John Willimans
"The Frog" <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f6q2ivg3mgcda9ooa...@4ax.com...
>
> Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
>
> Republicans:
>
> 1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
>
> 2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
>
> 2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
>
> 3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
>
> 4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
>
> 5) More Texans registered as Republicans
>
> Why would anyone believe that the district map that was imposed on
> Texas by the courts reflects Texans' political will?
> Why can't the people of Texas draw their own map?
>
Educate yourself
http://www.txdemocrats.org/Redistricting/assets/percentagerelease.htm
"Here are the facts: Democrats currently hold 17 of the state's 32
Congressional districts (53 percent). Of those 17 Democratic seats, five are
in districts carried by every single statewide Republican candidate in 2002
and by President Bush in 2000. If Republicans had simply won the Republican
districts that currently exist (15 plus 5 for a total of 20), they would
hold 62.5 percent of the Congressional districts in Texas.
The reality is that voters chose to split their tickets in five of these
Congressional districts, voting Republican in every race except for Congress
where they voted for a Democrat who was doing a good job representing his
district."
Why do you have such a big problem withg letting the voters decide?
The Frog
The voters nor any representative drew these districts.
There was no democratic or representative process.
What is wrong with letting the people of Texas decide their own
districts instead of the Courts?
Why do you have a problem with democracy?
The Frog
wrote:
>Must be all that Texas air pollution that bush let happen.
Run mouth, brain asleep....
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/7_05/vs.html
"This is the third year that Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Alaska have
topped the list as the most polluted states"
Dave Simpson
is not merely just a grasped-at crutch by loserish left-wing groups
who can't "sell their ideas in the normal marketplace of ideas."
Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
vote.
It really is a hell of a lot easier, as well as eliminating
strictly-local "pork-barrel" B.S.. (Representatives "at-large" for
the nation as a whole, which would even more strongly counter
pork-barreling, are not legitimate; they are anti-federal and
anti-constitutional. But, representatives at-large for individual
states are completely federal and constitutional and legitimate. All
it would take for the conversion to proportional representation to
happen to become legal, is to make changes in the the federal law that
mandates individual districts currently for all states.)
Dave Simpson
John Willimans
Sure their was and the process called for the judges to intervene in the
case of a deadlock which is exactly what happened. Who appoints the judges?
The elected officials and voters do. So no, no problem with the democratic
or representative process. Only standard checks and balances.
> What is wrong with letting the people of Texas decide their own
> districts instead of the Courts?
>
That is what happened. The Representatives were deadlocked so the courts
settled it.
Unless of course you think they should put the new districts to a statewide
vote, is that what you are asking?
> Why do you have a problem with democracy?
>
So, you are saying that when a judge has to step in to settle a dispute,
that isn't considered part of a democracy? You must be steamed over the
2000 Florida debacle.
Q
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:56:44 -0500, Q <WallyI...@erewhon.not>
>wrote:
>
>>Must be all that Texas air pollution that bush let happen.
>
Run mouth, teeny tiny froggie brain asleep....
http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Dismantling_Regulations.html
This is the second part of a three part series on how efforts to
control air pollution have been impeded by the Gov. George W. Bush
administration, together with representatives of polluting industries.
While other actions and in-actions by Gov. Bush have played
significant roles in hindering efforts to control air pollution in
Texas, Gov. Bush's support for preserving regulatory loopholes for
polluting industrial plants most clearly demonstrates his cavalier to
negative attitude toward the environment.
Phoenix Rising
>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>
>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
>vote.
>[snip] Dave Simpson
>
>
Would that it were so simple.
PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers. Look at
the hard-right parties in Israel. Look at the history of Italian
politics. Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky. Think
of what the currently matter-of-course bills to organize the House and
Senate would be like under that. The raving minority group could
extract severe concessions from whatever group they felt most strongly
aligned with, or could simply let it be known that there would be a
bidding war of political favors for their support in organizing the
legislature.
I'm represented by a Republican at the moment while I consider
myself a Democrat. That's fine with me, as I know there are probably an
equal number of Republicans out there who are represented by Democrats.
If I have something that needs to be said to Democratic ears, I have my
local party offices and Democratic representatives of neighboring
districts. Meanwhile, the harmful fringe elements that would truly rend
the fabric of America to pursue their own divisive, narrow-minded
interests are shut out of the legislature, forcing them to moderate
themselves and amalgamate into the major parties rather than forcing the
major parties to kowtow to them. This is a *good* thing, unless you
happen to be one of the rabid members of those parties.
--Phoenix Rising
Mitchell Holman
>
> Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
>
> Republicans:
>
> 1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
>
> 2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
>
> 2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
>
> 3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
>
> 4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
>
> 5) More Texans registered as Republicans
If Texas is so Republican, then why can't
Republicans win more Congressional seats?
> Why would anyone believe that the district map that was imposed on
> Texas by the courts reflects Texans' political will?
> Why can't the people of Texas draw their own map?
The people of Texas aren't asking for
redistricting. Only Tom Delay and Governor
Perry are. Even the GOP Atty General says
the current map is valid and legal.
Texas is mired in debt, libraries are
being closed, textbook purchases curtailed,
family health coverage cancelled, and yet
the GOP insists on spending $11 million
on a redistricting session that no one wants.
Is that what "fiscal conservatism" as
come down to?
volantus4
House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
all is appropriate in my opinion. The current "winner take all" form
of electoral representation promulgates corruption with cabals of
influential and/or criminal and/or corrupt and/or wealthy individuals
able to gain control of the party apparatus thus dictating party
policy to their own unjust means and ends. Proportional representation
would make governments more competitive ( and thus more honest and
open), more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
the aforementioned reasons. It is likely that the individuals elected
through "proportional representation" in "minor parties" will be of a
higher calibure than the larger parties because they will represent
reform and be much less subject to corruption than politicians of the
larger political parties. I understand that the Canadian Province of
Quebec is going to change to the proportional political representation
model in it's next election and that the whole of Canada is likely to
follow. I believe that the USA should follow Canada's example. I live
in Dallas, Texas.
Steve
> Frog, this whole gerrymander issue is why proportional representation
> is not merely just a grasped-at crutch by loserish left-wing groups
> who can't "sell their ideas in the normal marketplace of ideas."
>
> Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
> candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
> gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
> impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
> simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
> but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
> there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
> ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
One easy answer is to revise the number of Congressional reps. The US has
one of the worst rep to population ratios on Earth - 1:500,000 at the
federal level.
The 435 reps have not been increased since 1911...and the US now has 291m
people.
The UK, with 60m, has over 600 MPs. They also have regional parliaments in
Scotland and Wales.
Germany, with 80m people, has about 660 federal reps, plus they also have
several state legislatures - like the US.
Canada, with 30m people, 10 provinces, one autonomous region (Nunavut) and
one territory, has over 300 MPs.
....and so on.
> Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
> vote.
Yes. It works.
> It really is a hell of a lot easier, as well as eliminating
> strictly-local "pork-barrel" B.S.. (Representatives "at-large" for
> the nation as a whole, which would even more strongly counter
> pork-barreling, are not legitimate; they are anti-federal and
> anti-constitutional. But, representatives at-large for individual
> states are completely federal and constitutional and legitimate. All
> it would take for the conversion to proportional representation to
> happen to become legal, is to make changes in the the federal law that
> mandates individual districts currently for all states.)
Exactly. What's more, it can be done by majority vote of Congress. It could
happen any time.
The Canadian province of Quebec - largest in area and 2nd in population -
has just announced it is moving the provincial (state) voting system to
Mixed-member Proportional starting with the next election.
MMP has been used in Germany since WW II and has also recently been adopted
by New Zealand, South Africa and Bulgaria.
--
Steve
Steve
> Proportional representation at both the state and Federal level in the
> House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
> all is appropriate in my opinion. The current "winner take all" form
> of electoral representation promulgates corruption with cabals of
> influential and/or criminal and/or corrupt and/or wealthy individuals
> able to gain control of the party apparatus thus dictating party
> policy to their own unjust means and ends.
In the US, winner take all is particularly bad because the re-districting is
in the hands of partisan politicians.
In most OTHER countries that use winner take all (a shrinking number, by the
way) the districts are drawn by independent commissions protected by
statute from political interfrence - and open to public input on boundary
changes. The politicians do not have a final say. The Commission decides -
and the public then judges how fair it was and can appeal.
This sort of things is done in the US ONLY in Iowa. All other states
effectively legalise gerrymandering by majority (partisan, naturally) vote
in state legislatures.
> Proportional representation
> would make governments more competitive ( and thus more honest and
> open),
It makes parties more competitive - because ALL voters realistically have
several parties they could vote for and expect to see elected. Their party
might need, for example, to in 5% of the vote to win 5% of the seats.
> more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
> promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
> higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
> the aforementioned reasons.
There will always be sleaze-bags.....but under a PR system, it's easier to
root them out. They are a liability to their entire party as they can
negatively impact the share of the vote that party might get. bad apples
are usually got rid of smartly once exposed.
> It is likely that the individuals elected
> through "proportional representation" in "minor parties" will be of a
> higher calibure than the larger parties because they will represent
> reform and be much less subject to corruption than politicians of the
> larger political parties.
I would say based on my experience that this is true. Certainly you do see
more people elected who are not wedded to power....and they work to
represent their voters.....not their moneymen. In a PR system, EVERY Vote
counts...and you need those votes to get a good share and win lots of
seats.
> I understand that the Canadian Province of
> Quebec is going to change to the proportional political representation
> model in it's next election and that the whole of Canada is likely to
> follow. I believe that the USA should follow Canada's example. I live
> in Dallas, Texas.
Canada probably will follow....though not right away. The current canadian
PM has been a supporter of proportional representation, but he is retiring
in the Spring. What he will leave behind him is a report from a Commission
currently underway they will recommend a form of proportional
representation that might be suitable for Canada.
This is what happened in New Zealand, too, in 1986. A similar report formed
the core of a campaign for change to PR (MMP - the same system Quebec will
adopt) and away from the winner take all system that finally succeeded in a
referendum in 1993.
I live in New Zealand. Proportional representation is shit hot...and makes
you look back at the days of winner take all as the bad old days.
PR truly is a mind-shift. You see the world in a new way.
I believe this is also a major part of the difference between the US and
Europe. They are diversely and vibrantly democratic....and the voices of
minor parties in legislatures means that you hear many messages - and there
is no one truth - as is too often the case in US politics.
PR is better democracy. I've lived under both. PR is best by far.
--
Steve
Steve
> Dave Simpson wrote:
>
>>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
>>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
>>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
>>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
>>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
>>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
>>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
>>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>>
>>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
>>vote.
>>[snip] Dave Simpson
>
> Would that it were so simple.
.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you may
not even be aware you are exhibiting.
> PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
> dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers.
What is really happening is that voters vote for people and parties they
like. These people and parties are elected to represent these voters. So
far, so good.
They all go to the legislature and debate the important matters of the day -
and pass laws that reflect the consensus they have been able to reach.
That is democracy. We probably agree on that much.
A feature of democracy is that you don't win a vote unless you have a
majority. Proportional representation often results in no single party
having a majority....becasue the seats won reflects precisely the share of
the vote each party won.
Your suggestion that "fringe" parties "dominate" is a perversion of reality.
What you are really saying is that your minority party is unable to
unilaterally impose your agenda on the nation because other parties will
not back you and allow you to have a majority. They disagree with you.
The ONLY reason a small party can have the "balance of power" is because the
legislature is *already* divided on a proposed measure. Simple math makes
this obvious. In a simple legislature with 100 members - broken up into 3
parties - 45/45/10 - there can be no majority unless at least 51 members
agree.
Now....if 45 think one thing and the other 45 disagree.....does that mean
the 10 who must decide one way or the other are "dominating"? You're
overlooking the role of the OTHER 45 who ALSO disagree. Together - they are
a majority.
Without one group or other of 45, the '3rd-party' would have no power at
all. They are outnumbered 90 to 10 if the two larger groups agree.
You're really just moaning about the correct and proper operation of
democracy.
Get over it.
> Look at the hard-right parties in Israel.
Isreal have a very low threshold of 1% of the vote. Most PR countries have
thresholds of 4%-5%.
But LOOK at Israel - the strongest, most dominant country in the Middle
east. The only true democracy in the middle east.
They have very effective and stable government....despiter what you claim is
a failing. You may not agree with who israeli voters vote for. But you seem
to be arguing here they they have no right be represented by the people
they would chose to do so.
You want to use the voting system to suppress viewpoints you don't like.
That IS what you are saying.
> Look at the history of Italian politics.
Again, Italy's former voting system had very low thresholds as compared to
most PR countries. The Rome electorate had *30* members....allowing somone
with about 1/29th of the vote to be elected. That's how the porn start was
elected a few years ago.
But look again at Italy. The Christian Democrats dominated italy for 50
years despite all the elections. The policy regime they worked to evolved
slowly over time. There were no left / right revolutions. Despite good
political theatre and many opportunities to vote, italy had a stable body
of policy and law and prospered within Europe.
Look again at Italy - with a stronger economy than Britain (who use winner
take all) despite what you claim is flakey politics...and I what I call a
vibrant and genuine democracy - come get some!
> Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
> Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
> Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky.
So what? Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you a right to ban
democracy.
What is at the root of your case - all points - is a distrust in democracy
in general -aand voters in particular.
Here is another scenario:
Two major parties: Democrats and Republicans.
Several minor parties: Greens (left), Libertarians (right), "reform"
(centre-right/left depending on the issue)...plus a couple of other parties
that are oriented around issues rather than ideologies.
What REALLY happens is that the largest of the major parties will seek the
support of ALL minor parties 9and even the other major party) for budget
and supply - to govern.
Look at the breadth of the field. Do you see what I see?
I don't see one minor-party tail wagging the dog. If this is what you get,
you need to lower your threshold to have MORE minor parties.
In a 6-10 party legislature, I see a governing dog (a minority government or
coalition) with a nice *selection* of tails to wag - depending on the issue
at hand.
This is what most often happens. The governing party gets to align on
'right' issues with the 'right' minor party(ies)...and will allign on
'left' issues with the 'left' minoro party(ies). No single minor party gets
to call the tune - and the only thing the government needs to remember is
that it also does not command a majority alone. It didn't get enough votes
to win enough seats to do that. It needs support.
Remember - at all times no law is passed unless voted for by by a majority
of members who - collectively - represent a majority of voters.
What I have been describing is a mind-quake for minds used to a two-party,
winner-take-all environment. It takes a while to get your head around this.
I know. I made the journey from winner take all to PR over several years in
my own head. Some people 'get' this in a few minutes. Others will go to
their graves never getting it. They tend to be conservatives - I must
admit. It seems to be part of that mind set to fail to understand
abstraction.
> Think
> of what the currently matter-of-course bills to organize the House and
> Senate would be like under that. The raving minority group could
> extract severe concessions from whatever group they felt most strongly
> aligned with, or could simply let it be known that there would be a
> bidding war of political favors for their support in organizing the
> legislature.
The truth is that this doesn't happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Why? Because you are failing to allow for the views of voters who support
the larger parties you claim will give away the farm to appease "raving"
(always the pejorative terms) minor party.
If you are a voter for Big Party A...and Little Party J is trying to push
your party around....what do you do?
You tell your party to tell Little Party J to go to hell...and meet you at
the ballot box.
That is usually MORE than enough to make Little party J sit down and be
reasonable. They ARE a little party, after all, and much more vulnerable to
voter shifts. Your own party could gain HUGELY at the polls by being
'tough' with little party J.
So instead of big parties cowering and bullied by minor parties, the reality
is that big parties adopt a "make my day" stance to small parties who get
uppity.
The OTHER thing to bear in mind is what does the public think? If little
party J has tapped into a vein of support onan issue you are wrong-footed
on, then you may not wish to be so tough.
But do you hear what I'm saying? This IS democracy...and the role of voters
doesn't end when they count the votes. under a PR system there is a
constant feedback loop operating between the legislature and the public.
You WANT this. It's GOOD. It means accountability right through the
electoral cycle....and not just on polling day.
> I'm represented by a Republican at the moment while I consider
> myself a Democrat. That's fine with me, as I know there are probably an
> equal number of Republicans out there who are represented by Democrats.
You've accepted the status quo. You choice. But it isn't necessary. There
IS a better way.
> If I have something that needs to be said to Democratic ears, I have my
> local party offices and Democratic representatives of neighboring
> districts.
If you have some thing Green or Libertarian or <whatever> to say - you're
SOL.
> Meanwhile, the harmful fringe elements that would truly rend
> the fabric of America to pursue their own divisive, narrow-minded
> interests are shut out of the legislature, forcing them to moderate
> themselves and amalgamate into the major parties rather than forcing the
> major parties to kowtow to them.
...and in my experience of living in a country with PR is that your fears
are unfounded. It just doesn't happen if you have your system set up right
- with perhaps 6-10 parties able to be elected....and no one of them can
have undue influence beyond their share of the vote.
You forget two things:
1. Voters are reasonable poeple. They elect reasonable people.
2. the minor-party bogeymen you conjure up - even if they did exist - won't
have a majoirty of votes in the legislature....and will be outvoted every
time by more reasonable people who WILL ALWAYS hold a majority - usually a
huge one.
> This is a *good* thing, unless you happen to be one of the rabid members
> of those parties.
Is it a credible postion for you to claim that anyone not a Democrat or a
Republican is automatically a foaming at the mouth, rabid idiot?
No.
It doesn't happen.
People don't vote for that.
Your problem is that you are afraid of democracy. You may be a Democrat, but
you are clearly no democrat.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Thom
<gram...@att.not.here> wrote:
>Dave Simpson wrote:
>
>>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
>>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
>>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
>>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
>>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
>>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
>>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
>>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>>
>>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
>>vote.
>>[snip] Dave Simpson
>>
>>
>
> Would that it were so simple.
>
> PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
>dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers. Look at
>the hard-right parties in Israel. Look at the history of Italian
>politics.
Look at John Howards' coalition in Australia. If it were not for the
national party his 33% would mean didly.
THOM
Phoenix Rising
>Proportional representation at both the state and Federal level in the
>House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
>all is appropriate in my opinion. The current "winner take all" form
>of electoral representation promulgates corruption with cabals of
>influential and/or criminal and/or corrupt and/or wealthy individuals
>able to gain control of the party apparatus thus dictating party
>policy to their own unjust means and ends. Proportional representation
>would make governments more competitive ( and thus more honest and
>open),
>
What is your basis for this claim?
>more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
>promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
>higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
>the aforementioned reasons.
>
What aforementioned reasons?
>It is likely that the individuals elected through "proportional representation" in "minor parties" will be of a
>higher calibure than the larger parties because they will represent
>reform and be much less subject to corruption than politicians of the
>larger political parties. I understand that the Canadian Province of
>Quebec is going to change to the proportional political representation
>model in it's next election and that the whole of Canada is likely to
>follow. I believe that the USA should follow Canada's example. I live
>in Dallas, Texas.
>
>
Fundamentalist parties generally draw votes on claims of being "less
corrupt." It was how the Nazis got started as well.
Generally, the highest-caliber candidates are those found at the
center, because they're the ones who can balance opposing poles and
still have a sense of self-identity. They're also best at relating to
the widest swath of the American electorate. However, PR systems tend
not to foster the development of centrist parties; they foster the
development of extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based ones.
A third party might well emerge in America if the two parties split
far enough apart to make room for one in the center, where the most
voters are. It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
are generally tempered by realism in the process.
--Phoenix Rising
Phoenix Rising
>Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
>
>
>>Dave Simpson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
>>>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
>>>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
>>>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
>>>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
>>>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
>>>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
>>>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>>>
>>>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
>>>vote.
>>>[snip] Dave Simpson
>>>
>>>
>> Would that it were so simple.
>>
>>
>
>.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
>proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
>just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you may
>not even be aware you are exhibiting.
>
Nice try, but I'm not convinced. Particularly when you say that I
harbor a "contempt for democracy" when I prefer single-member plurality,
which any political scientist worth their weight will tell you *is* a
viable and indeed far more stable form of democracy than PR.
>>PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
>>dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers.
>>
>>
>
>What is really happening is that voters vote for people and parties they
>like. These people and parties are elected to represent these voters. So
>far, so good.
>
>They all go to the legislature and debate the important matters of the day -
>and pass laws that reflect the consensus they have been able to reach.
>
>That is democracy. We probably agree on that much.
>
Yes, we do that in single-member plurality systems, too.
>A feature of democracy is that you don't win a vote unless you have a
>majority. Proportional representation often results in no single party
>having a majority....becasue the seats won reflects precisely the share of
>the vote each party won.
>
>Your suggestion that "fringe" parties "dominate" is a perversion of reality.
>
Actually, it's a completely accurate observation of reality.
>What you are really saying is that your minority party is unable to
>unilaterally impose your agenda on the nation because other parties will
>not back you and allow you to have a majority. They disagree with you.
>
"Unilaterally?!" If you have a majority, then what you're doing is
not likely unilateral.
>The ONLY reason a small party can have the "balance of power" is because the
>legislature is *already* divided on a proposed measure. Simple math makes
>this obvious. In a simple legislature with 100 members - broken up into 3
>parties - 45/45/10 - there can be no majority unless at least 51 members
>agree.
>
>Now....if 45 think one thing and the other 45 disagree.....does that mean
>the 10 who must decide one way or the other are "dominating"? You're
>overlooking the role of the OTHER 45 who ALSO disagree. Together - they are
>a majority.
>
>Without one group or other of 45, the '3rd-party' would have no power at
>all. They are outnumbered 90 to 10 if the two larger groups agree.
>
>You're really just moaning about the correct and proper operation of
>democracy.
>
>Get over it.
>
ROFL Who sells you this stuff? I'm starting to understand why the
top 10 political science programs in the world are all American.
"The correct and proper operation of democracy" is anything but an
open-and-shut case, and there is no miracle pill.
Do you have *any* concept of how politics works? What you've just
described is how politics works when you have a party split in a
single-member plurality system, as we saw earlier this week when the US
House passed a Democrat-sponsored bill to allow Americans to buy
prescription drugs from overseas instead of paying inflated domestic
prices. However, once that vote was over, the members went back to
their own side of the aisle and it was business as usual.
In a proportional system where one tiny party (say your 45-45-10
system) with a single dominant interest has the tiebreaking vote, and
it's an issue that they don't care overmuch about because they have a
single interest (reparations for slavery, continued occupation of the
West Bank, universal healthcare, import duties on goods produced in the
third world, pick one), they'll simply vote with whatever party promises
to back them on that issue, guaranteeing that in order to get something
passed that has 55% of the vote, they'll have to pass something that
perhaps only 10% of the people actually support.
>>Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
>>Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
>>Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky.
>>
>>
>
>So what? Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you a right to ban
>democracy.
>
No, but it gives me a right to advocate for my own form of it. You
seem to be denying that anything short of proportional representation is
actually democracy. Well, sorry, but nearly the entire political and
academic community disagrees with you.
Single-member plurality *is* a form of democracy. It is a *stable*
form of democracy because candidates need to appeal to where the
broadest number of voters are, which is hopefully in the center, and if
it isn't, then you've got far more problems than just institutional
structure. Proportional representation systems make it easier for
small, radical parties to hijack the political process.
Come to America and get a political science degree, or just a few
comparative government courses, from a university that isn't just an
indoctrination center for anti-American thinking. Then we'll talk
again. In the meantime, I'll take my professors and my own research
over your rather thinly veiled contempt for the American system of
democracy.
--Phoenix Rising
Karni06
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
> Dave Simpson allegedly said:
>
> > Frog, this whole gerrymander issue is why proportional representation
> > is not merely just a grasped-at crutch by loserish left-wing groups
> > who can't "sell their ideas in the normal marketplace of ideas."
> >
> > Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
> > candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
> > gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
> > impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
> > simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
> > but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
> > there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
> > ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>
> One easy answer is to revise the number of Congressional reps. The US has
> one of the worst rep to population ratios on Earth - 1:500,000 at the
> federal level.
>
> The 435 reps have not been increased since 1911...and the US now has 291m
> people.
>
> The UK, with 60m, has over 600 MPs. They also have regional parliaments in
> Scotland and Wales.
>
> Germany, with 80m people, has about 660 federal reps, plus they also have
> several state legislatures - like the US.
Why are more Rep's a priori a "desirable" thing? I'd rather have 1Rep
for 500,000 = 435 Reps than 1 Rep for 100,000 = 2175 Reps! In the latter
case, the power of an indivudal Rep would be nil in most cases!
--
Kar...@aol.com | NOTE: Remove the "**" from my E-mail
Individuality Hall | to reply to me at Kar...@aol.com
Institute for International | "Don't be taxing my gig so hard core,
Electoral Analysis | Cruster!..."
Dana
"Steve" <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
news:gsmUa.7365$9f7.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
> Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
> > Dave Simpson wrote:
> You forget two things:
>
> 1. Voters are reasonable poeple. They elect reasonable people.
Here you are wrong. While I will agree most voters are reasonable, a good 20
to 25% are not. Nor would the people elect reasonable people all the time.
And you have to remember that power corrupts hence these reasonable people
may do unreasonable acts. Take a look at Daschle, a very strong political
person in favor of tough environmental laws, yet even he fell to the money
from big money donors, and he allowed a mining company in his state to be
immune from the very tough environmental laws he put in place.
And yes Republican politicians do the very same thing. Which is the entire
point. Must people are overcome with the power and the only thing that is
important to them is staying in power, so while they tell the masses one
thing, they also do the bidding of the big money donors, and this happens to
both parties.
> 2. the minor-party bogeymen you conjure up - even if they did exist -
won't
> have a majoirty of votes in the legislature....and will be outvoted every
> time by more reasonable people who WILL ALWAYS hold a majority -
Here we agree, third parties are not as bad as some people like to make them
out to be.
> Your problem is that you are afraid of democracy. You may be a Democrat,
but
> you are clearly no democrat.
Democrat party and democracy are not the same in America, as we are not a
true democracy but we are a republic. This does not mean that the Republican
party has a leg up on the democrats. But you raise some good points. While
you may be very arrogant and elitist in your attitude, some of your points
are also incorrect. The first poster bought up Italy as proof that having
such a fragmented legislature leads to an unstable form of government, you
try to say that it does not. Well hell all you have to do is look at how
many governments Italy has had. What was it maybe 10 years ago it was almost
like they were changing governments on a weekly basis. Look at the squabbles
in the English version of legislation, I sometimes catch it on CSPAN. What a
hoot, I am half expected those guys to start beating the hell out of each
other. They surely have a much more livlier debate than the American house
or Senate, hell compared to the British politicians , our politicians act as
if they are dead.
But I do agree with you that the American system of winner takes all needs
to change. While I do not agree with having up two 6 parties in legislature,
I can see 4, as the left has the green movement, and the right has the
reform movement. The common tie between these two is they attract people
tired of the stagnant two party system.
What I think should happen is that the winner take all approach be
abandoned, and that the actual will of the people be upheld.
For congressional elections this means we would probably be able to get more
independents or candidates from outside the two parties into the House and
Senate, and in various state political offices.
For presidential elections this would require a revamping of the electoral
college, not the abolishment of, just revamping the electoral college to
make it more fair in regards to third parties.
>
> --
> Steve
Steve
> volantus4 wrote:
>
>>Proportional representation at both the state and Federal level in the
>>House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
>>all is appropriate in my opinion. The current "winner take all" form
>>of electoral representation promulgates corruption with cabals of
>>influential and/or criminal and/or corrupt and/or wealthy individuals
>>able to gain control of the party apparatus thus dictating party
>>policy to their own unjust means and ends. Proportional representation
>>would make governments more competitive ( and thus more honest and
>>open),
>
> What is your basis for this claim?
I'll back him up. I live in a country that uses proprortional representation
and what he says is true.
He would have been better to say that PR makes 'parties' more competitive.
This is becasue in a PR system, if your Parliament or legislature has
several / many parties in it, that means your vote can be used to back any
of them - and probably result in seats.
So the "broad church" parties of the Democrats and Republicans will do two
things:
1. Break up. They only exists as they are because the system offers no other
choice.
2. Compete actively with a more clear and refined message - for votes.
>>more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
>>promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
>>higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
>>the aforementioned reasons.
>
> What aforementioned reasons?
This is more a failure on your part to understand than it is a failure on
his part to explain himself.
If parties become more numberous - and there is genuine ideological
competition between them - then they will have MUCH reduced capacity for
carrying the dead-weight time-serving freeloaders who infest the democrats
and republicans today.
under PR, over time, non-performers are shown the door....as voters won't
vote for non-performers...They are a liability and can reduce the share of
the vote for their party....thus reducing their representation.
Again - this is BECAUSE in a PR system voters don't have just two,
take-it-or-leave-it, choices. They have many more choices - and they know
their vote will count toward representation - and not be wasted because
their guy didn't win in winner take all.
>>It is likely that the individuals elected through "proportional
>>representation" in "minor parties" will be of a higher calibure than the
>>larger parties because they will represent reform and be much less subject
>>to corruption than politicians of the larger political parties. I
>>understand that the Canadian Province of Quebec is going to change to the
>>proportional political representation model in it's next election and that
>>the whole of Canada is likely to follow. I believe that the USA should
>>follow Canada's example. I live in Dallas, Texas.
>
> Fundamentalist parties generally draw votes on claims of being "less
> corrupt." It was how the Nazis got started as well.
The Nazi cannard. Excellent. There are 88 countries using proportional
representation today.....and not a Nazi party in any of them.
Germany was a monarchy until WW I. It was not a democracy. In the 20's it
suffered hyper-inflation and was stricken with apalling poverty. The heavy
burden of reparations imposed by the Allies after WW I left them bankrupt.
Then we had the world depression.
Hitler offered hope and jobs - and to abrogate the payment of reparations.
He was a populist, nationalist leader. His message was a most welcome one.
In 1933.
Who knew that he would seize power by force?
Germans were desperate. But even than, Hitler never got more than 40% of the
vote in any election. in a PR system, that kept him from governing alone.
he had to seize power at the point of a gun - using emergency legislation
not much different to the US Patriot Act and its proposed successor.
Had Germany had winner take all, Hitler may well have won an outright
majority in the German legislature with his 40%.
How?
In Canada, the present Liberal government holds 57% of the seats with 40.2%
of the vote.....thanks to winner take all.
Look at President Bush. If people knew when they (almost) elected him that
he would lead the country into 2 wars.....they would not have voted for
him.
Hitler seized power by force or he would eventually have lost power through
the ballot box.
> Generally, the highest-caliber candidates are those found at the
> center, because they're the ones who can balance opposing poles and
> still have a sense of self-identity.
Or they are gormless crawlers who agree with everyone.....
> They're also best at relating to
> the widest swath of the American electorate. However, PR systems tend
> not to foster the development of centrist parties; they foster the
> development of extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based ones.
This is an utterly fatuous statement. You've made it up.
If what you are saying is true, then at this very moment 88 countries are
being governed by "extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based" minor
parties.
Let me save you some time. They aren't.
PR *better* allows voters to see who the REAL centrists are - and vote for
them.
The Democrats and Republicans today conceal among their ranks almost every
political flavour that would - if it could - break free and be a distinct
political package in tis own right - and you could vote for it.
People in Tennesse might want to vote for a Pelosi - but their local
democrat acts more like a Republican.....such is winner take all.
If you want to vote for a broad, centrist party (and under PR systems most
voters do) then you certainly can.
The reality - quite seprate and distinct from your fanciful statement above
- is that in EVERY country with PR today, the governing group is composed
of parties of the Centre. That is becasue parties of the centre win the
greatest share of the vote.
> A third party might well emerge in America if the two parties split
> far enough apart to make room for one in the center, where the most
> voters are.
????
> It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
> UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
> system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
> remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
> before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
> are generally tempered by realism in the process.
The UK Parliament has about 7 parties in it - as does the Canadian
Parliament. Why? Becasue anyone can get his name on the ballot for about
$300 or $1000 dollars - depending on what country you refer to.
In the US, many states require thousands of signatures on a petition in
order to even be on the ballot if you aren't a Democrat or Republican.
Just another corrupt method used to restrict democracy and reduce voter
choice.
Judging from your various posts, restricted democracy and reduced choice are
your primary concerns.
Butlook what it is doing to America! You fear PR....but LOOK!!!
Look at what is already happening.
PR would fix most of it. All America really needs is MORE democracy - not
less.
I live in acountry that uses PR and the claims you make are not born out by
real-world experience.
Dana
"Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
news:3F220164...@att.not.here...
>
> Do you have *any* concept of how politics works? What you've just
> described is how politics works when you have a party split in a
> single-member plurality system, as we saw earlier this week when the US
> House passed a Democrat-sponsored bill to allow Americans to buy
> prescription drugs from overseas instead of paying inflated domestic
> prices.
The prescription plan that was passed recently (June) was a republican
backed and introduced bill covering mostly medicare, but havin a provision
for prescriptions especially for the elderly. And more recently it was a
republican sponsered bill that was passed in the house that would allow the
importation of prescription drugs.
And on July 25th this bill which was sponsered by a republican Gil
Gutknecht H. R. 2427 was passed by the house. This allows
The importation of prescription drugs.
To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate
regulations for the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other
purposes.
Phoenix Rising
>So the "broad church" parties of the Democrats and Republicans will do two
>things:
>
>1. Break up. They only exists as they are because the system offers no other
>choice.
>
>2. Compete actively with a more clear and refined message - for votes.
>
By which you mean a narrower and less comprehensive policy package
... single interests designed to pick up votes at the cost of national
unity. New Zealand is small, as are most of your 88 countries with PR.
Germany is the largest, and their political system could not sustain a
fracture into much more than the four dominant parties (with a few
smaller ones) that they already have. They're barely hanging on as it is.
>>>more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
>>>promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
>>>higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
>>>the aforementioned reasons.
>>>
>>>
>> What aforementioned reasons?
>>
>>
>
>This is more a failure on your part to understand than it is a failure on
>his part to explain himself.
>
Then perhaps you could highlight for me the point in his post where
he did.
>> Fundamentalist parties generally draw votes on claims of being "less
>>corrupt." It was how the Nazis got started as well.
>>
>>
>
>The Nazi cannard. Excellent. There are 88 countries using proportional
>representation today.....and not a Nazi party in any of them.
>
And you know all the parties in all 88 of them, I'm sure.
>[snip]
>Germans were desperate. But even than, Hitler never got more than 40% of the
>vote in any election. in a PR system, that kept him from governing alone.
>he had to seize power at the point of a gun - using emergency legislation
>not much different to the US Patriot Act and its proposed successor.
>
You call my example of the Nazis a "canard" and then pull out
standard delusional parallels between America and the Third Reich.
Sorry, not going there.
>Look at President Bush. If people knew when they (almost) elected him that
>he would lead the country into 2 wars.....they would not have voted for
>him.
>
If we had known 9/11 was going to happen, it would have been a moot
point, and without that, there would not have been the two wars.
Afghanistan was well below the radar screen before that.
>> Generally, the highest-caliber candidates are those found at the
>>center, because they're the ones who can balance opposing poles and
>>still have a sense of self-identity.
>>
>>
>
>Or they are gormless crawlers who agree with everyone.....
>
No one can agree with everyone. But thank you for your disparaging
remarks towards the center. I'm guessing you're a member of one of the
parties that would have been shown the door under single-member
plurality systems.
>>They're also best at relating to
>>the widest swath of the American electorate. However, PR systems tend
>>not to foster the development of centrist parties; they foster the
>>development of extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based ones.
>>
>>
>
>This is an utterly fatuous statement. You've made it up.
>
>If what you are saying is true, then at this very moment 88 countries are
>being governed by "extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based" minor
>parties.
>
>Let me save you some time. They aren't.
>
They aren't necessarily *governed* by them, but those extreme
parties have a foothold in the government that would be denied them by
single-member plurality.
>[snip]
>
>>It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
>>UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
>>system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
>>remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
>>before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
>>are generally tempered by realism in the process.
>>
>>
>
>The UK Parliament has about 7 parties in it - as does the Canadian
>Parliament. Why? Becasue anyone can get his name on the ballot for about
>$300 or $1000 dollars - depending on what country you refer to.
>
And you consider this a good thing? You would like seeing porn
stars elected to the legislature?
>In the US, many states require thousands of signatures on a petition in
>order to even be on the ballot if you aren't a Democrat or Republican.
>
>Just another corrupt method used to restrict democracy and reduce voter
>choice.
>
>Judging from your various posts, restricted democracy and reduced choice are
>your primary concerns.
>
Actually, denying fringe parties a foothold into the halls of power
of the land I love is my primary concern.
>Butlook what it is doing to America! You fear PR....but LOOK!!!
>
>Look at what is already happening.
>
>PR would fix most of it. All America really needs is MORE democracy - not
>less.
>
You have a lot of confidence. Perhaps one day you will have wisdom
as well.
>I live in acountry that uses PR and the claims you make are not born out by
>real-world experience.
>
I live in the real world, too, and I read the news from many
countries. The more parties, the more politics. You claim PR would
reduce corruption? I give you Italy.
You claim it would "fix" America? I give you glasses. We're doing
a lot better than NZ. You just don't like what we're doing.
--Phoenix Rising
Phoenix Rising
I'm a little confused by how that would fix things, too.
What it would do, however, is allow smaller parties to make inroads
into the legislature, as here and there may exist scattered pockets of
voters that can elect Greens or Libertarians if the districts were more
fragmented. Steve, as a Green, would be in favor of this. However,
like most party loyalists, he seems to believe that the success of his
party = the success of the country. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't,
but it can hardly be held as an absolute truth.
I think 435 is a good number. I could see going as high as 600 or
as low as 400, and I could also see going to a 151-seat Senate (three
per state plus one for DC) so there would be no split votes from states
and there would consistently be one Senate election per state every two
years. However, that's pure thought exercise; if it ain't broke, don't
fix it, IMHO.
--Phoenix Rising
Steve
>
> "Steve" <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
> news:gsmUa.7365$9f7.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
>> Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>>
>> > Dave Simpson wrote:
>> You forget two things:
>>
>> 1. Voters are reasonable poeple. They elect reasonable people.
>
> Here you are wrong. While I will agree most voters are reasonable, a good
> 20 to 25% are not.
Who are you to deprive them of representation even if it were true?
> Nor would the people elect reasonable people all the
> time. And you have to remember that power corrupts hence these reasonable
> people may do unreasonable acts.
Then why do you insist on concentrating power in only two parties?
Surely - if power corrupts as you say - it would be FAR better to have 10
parties vying to be elected, ALL with a real chance of winning at least
SOME seats....and thereby allowing voters to make choices and knock back
those who have been corrupted by power.
PR addresses the very problem you raise by allowing voters more - and real -
choice.
> Take a look at Daschle, a very strong
> political person in favor of tough environmental laws, yet even he fell to
> the money from big money donors, and he allowed a mining company in his
> state to be immune from the very tough environmental laws he put in place.
The guy has to get money from somewhere. Would a Republican have not done
exactly the same and abused you for compaining?
If anything you underscore my point that voters need MORE choice.....and
that means a voting system that can deliver it.
Maybe if there were 4 or 6 Senators from each state - or maybe 10. Why not?
A state like California with only 2 senators - but 30 million people?
> And yes Republican politicians do the very same thing.
Right...so voters have no choice. Why then are you arguing against more
choice? Think about it.
> Which is the
> entire point. Must people are overcome with the power and the only thing
> that is important to them is staying in power, so while they tell the
> masses one thing, they also do the bidding of the big money donors, and
> this happens to both parties.
This is what I was saying in my post. Your mind is so full of the ills of
the present system you can't conceive of any other system operating in a
different way.
The US system is particularly prone to the money issue becasue there are so
FEW elected federal representatives and they come from only TWO parties.
It's even worse in the House because they have to raise the funds for
election every TWO years - in districts with 500,000 people. That is about
the most effective recipe for encouraging corruption that I can imagine.
>> 2. the minor-party bogeymen you conjure up - even if they did exist -
> won't
>> have a majoirty of votes in the legislature....and will be outvoted every
>> time by more reasonable people who WILL ALWAYS hold a majority -
>
> Here we agree, third parties are not as bad as some people like to make
> them out to be.
Good. The people making 3rd parties out to be bad are generally members or
supporters of the other two parties.
But think about this - not just 'a' 3rd party....but 7 or 8 of them. This
the daily reality of most of the world's democracies....and it works fine.
>> Your problem is that you are afraid of democracy. You may be a Democrat,
> but
>> you are clearly no democrat.
>
> Democrat party and democracy are not the same in America, as we are not a
> true democracy but we are a republic.
I know.
You missed the point. A person can be a 'democrat' - someone who belives in
democracy - and still belong to ANY party.
The person I was responding to says he is a Democrat (the party - capital D)
but his antipahty to demoracy means he is no 'democrat' (the method of
government by the people - small d).
> But you raise some good
> points. While you may be very arrogant and elitist in your attitude, some
> of your points are also incorrect.
How am I arrogant and elitist? I want everyone's vote to count - the OTHER
guy wants to limit representation to parties he approves of.
Did I use too many big words?
> The first poster bought up Italy as
> proof that having such a fragmented legislature leads to an unstable form
> of government, you try to say that it does not. Well hell all you have to
> do is look at how many governments Italy has had. What was it maybe 10
> years ago it was almost like they were changing governments on a weekly
> basis.
Sure....they averaged an election every 18 months for 40 years. But my
point was - and I'm not sure you got it - that the POLICIES being followed
during that entire time remained were those of the Christian
Democrats...and the overall stability of government and law remained
boringly the same throughout that time.
So what IS stability? Consistent policyover time (despite frequent
elections) or is it Left and Right alternating every 5 or 10 years
scrapping each others laws and turning the place upside down?
Think about that. I'm not being arrogant here. I'm enouraging to not mistake
the frequency of elections for instability in governance.
So what if they had a lot of elections? They have been more prosperous than
many other countries - like Britain - who use the winner take all voting
system.
Italy has actually addressed the election issue, too. They are still elected
proportionally, but they have effectively raised the threshold so that
there are not so many small parties. They now have maybe 15 parties instead
of 30....and elections are now more regular.
But imagine the US Congress with 15 parties! That would be awesome. Voters
would have real choice and everyone would be represented in the legislature
by some party they approved of and supported.
That isn't possible today. Dem or Rep - different colors, same flavor.
> Look at the squabbles in the English version of legislation, I
> sometimes catch it on CSPAN. What a hoot, I am half expected those guys to
> start beating the hell out of each other. They surely have a much more
> livlier debate than the American house or Senate, hell compared to the
> British politicians , our politicians act as if they are dead.
Britain use winner take all - like the US. But their leader is right there
- in the legislature - defending himself and his government. Britain uses
proportional representation for electing members of the European parliament
in Brussels. They also use it in the Scottish and Welsh regional
legislatures.
> But I do agree with you that the American system of winner takes all needs
> to change. While I do not agree with having up two 6 parties in
> legislature, I can see 4, as the left has the green movement, and the
> right has the reform movement. The common tie between these two is they
> attract people tired of the stagnant two party system.
Look more closely at the Democratic and the Republican parties. They are
made up of diverse and various factions - squashed together because if they
bail out, they will be electorally irrelevant under winner take all.
But if a system was put in place that allowed any party with more than - say
- 5% of the vote to win 5% of the seats, I think you would see the more
liberal republicans separate from the extremist conservatives - and
similarly in the Democratic party, some would go join the Greens - or form
a new "labor" and/or "liberal" party.....because now they could.
Where before we had two monolithic parties - each composed of diverse and
over-lapping factions - we would begin to see those elements move out on
their own - giving voters the option of explicitly supporting that set of
policies that before had been merged into all the other factions.
The GOOD news from your point of vuew is that most of these would be
jockerying foer traction in the CENTER....No one is going to win big vote
share by heading for the extremes. That is where Phoenix Rising falls over.
> What I think should happen is that the winner take all approach be
> abandoned, and that the actual will of the people be upheld.
How to determine that?
> For congressional elections this means we would probably be able to get
> more independents or candidates from outside the two parties into the
> House and Senate, and in various state political offices.
How?
> For presidential elections this would require a revamping of the electoral
> college, not the abolishment of, just revamping the electoral college to
> make it more fair in regards to third parties.
A big reform to the electoral college would be to require the votes in each
state to be allocated in proportion to the share of the vote won by each of
the candidates at the ballot box. In Iowa in 2000, it was a 50.1%/49.9%
split....and the winner got all the votes. I say that is unfair...They
should have been allocated 50/50 - as voters themselves did.
Had it been done that way - Gore would have won easily. He got 500,000 more
votes....so would have more electoral college votes, too.
Saying America isn't a democracy - it's a Republic - is a terrible thing.
Iraq wasn't a democracy either - it was a Republic.
There is no reason why a republic can't be a democracy. All you have to do
is count the votes fairly and let the resulting legislature get on with the
job. :-)
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>>
>>>Dave Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
>>>>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
>>>>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
>>>>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
>>>>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
>>>>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
>>>>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
>>>>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
>>>>
>>>>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
>>>>vote.
>>>>[snip] Dave Simpson
>>>>
>>> Would that it were so simple.
>>
>>.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
>>proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
>>just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you
>>may not even be aware you are exhibiting.
>
> Nice try, but I'm not convinced. Particularly when you say that I
> harbor a "contempt for democracy"
You want to use the voting system to exclude from representation viewpoints
you consider objectionable. That, to me, says you are happy to deprive
others of the representation they might choose for themselves.
By what right do you do that? Seriously.
> when I prefer single-member plurality,
> which any political scientist worth their weight will tell you *is* a
> viable and indeed far more stable form of democracy than PR.
The evidence doesn't support your claim. There are - today - 88 countries
that use various systems of proportional representation. They include
every country in Europe other than the UK and France. France goes to PR
when the Sociliasts are in power....and then goes back to a two-round
majoritarian system when the Conservatives win power.
The EU Parliament is proportional.
New Zealand is proportional. The Australian Senate is proportional. South
Africa is proportional. Tabo Mbeke seems to be doing just fine.
I once compared Germany to New Zealand.
Between 1945 and 1985, Germany had had something like 4 changes of
government.
In the same period, New Zealand, under winner take all, had had 5.
The same study showed that in the proportional country, relatively small
shifts of voter support lead to small shifts in party representation - and
evolutionary policy change.
In New Zealand, going from Labour (left) to National (right) was more akin
to revolution as each change in government saw the incoming government
scrap large chunks of law passed by the previous goverment - in favour of
new laws in line with the ideology of the new government.
So what IS stability? Have less frequent elections - but radical shifts in
policy? Or is in having slightly more elections - but more stable policy
over time?
Besides....in countries with PR it is rare that eelctions are any more
frequent than in countries with winner take all.
PR is used in ovr 80% of the world's democracies. Yet you can name only
Israel and Italy as ready examples of "instability".....ignoring the policy
continuity in both over time...and the *obvious* strength of the Israeli
democracy despite what you see as a system that shuold lead to instability.
>>>PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
>>>dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers.
>>
>>What is really happening is that voters vote for people and parties they
>>like. These people and parties are elected to represent these voters. So
>>far, so good.
>>
>>They all go to the legislature and debate the important matters of the day
>>- and pass laws that reflect the consensus they have been able to reach.
>>
>>That is democracy. We probably agree on that much.
>
> Yes, we do that in single-member plurality systems, too.
No. You don't. Vast numbers of voters are not able to elect anyone at all.
A Republican voter in a district that elects Democrats has a worthless vote.
A Democrat voter in a district that elects Republicans has a worthless vote.
A voter for any OTHER party has a worthless vote no matter where they live.
In all these cases, their votes elect no one.
In a PR system, ALL their votes count toward representation for the party
(or person - in STV, say) they support.
That is a HUGE difference. It's certainly a reason to get out and vote -
becasue your vote ALWAYS counts. In New Zealand, voter turn-out is around
80%.....compared to the 45% seen in the US - and that is for presidential
years. Mid-term turnouts are even lower.
Why vote when your vote is worth nothing? So Americans don't vote.
Add to this the profound gerrymandering of district boundaries and the
picture becomes dire.
In 2002 over 99% (!!!) of Congressional incumbents were re-elected.
Specifically - 427 of 431 who stood again.
That isn't a democracy. It's a farce. Thanks to boundary corruption.
>>A feature of democracy is that you don't win a vote unless you have a
>>majority. Proportional representation often results in no single party
>>having a majority....becasue the seats won reflects precisely the share of
>>the vote each party won.
>>
>>Your suggestion that "fringe" parties "dominate" is a perversion of
>>reality.
>
> Actually, it's a completely accurate observation of reality.
I live in a country with PR - see it firsthand every day - and I'm telling
you it's not an accurate version of reality.
I live it. I don't see here what you claim is inevitable.
Please - you have 88 countries to choose from. Tell me which ones are
dominated by minor parties.
>>What you are really saying is that your minority party is unable to
>>unilaterally impose your agenda on the nation because other parties will
>>not back you and allow you to have a majority. They disagree with you.
>
> "Unilaterally?!" If you have a majority, then what you're doing is
> not likely unilateral.
You missed the point....In a PR system, only rarely does one party get more
than 50% of the vote and win most seats. So you probably won't have a
majority.....
Same question: if you don't have a majority - because voters didn't give you
one - you can't claim anyone else is holding you to ransom or "dominating".
What you DO have is a collection of minorities - some large and some small -
who must represent the policies and values of their respective voters - and
govern the country.
In practice it works very well....as the 88 countries who use PR every day
clearly demonstrate.
>>The ONLY reason a small party can have the "balance of power" is because
>>the legislature is *already* divided on a proposed measure. Simple math
>>makes this obvious. In a simple legislature with 100 members - broken up
>>into 3 parties - 45/45/10 - there can be no majority unless at least 51
>>members agree.
>>
>>Now....if 45 think one thing and the other 45 disagree.....does that mean
>>the 10 who must decide one way or the other are "dominating"? You're
>>overlooking the role of the OTHER 45 who ALSO disagree. Together - they
>>are a majority.
>>
>>Without one group or other of 45, the '3rd-party' would have no power at
>>all. They are outnumbered 90 to 10 if the two larger groups agree.
>>
>>You're really just moaning about the correct and proper operation of
>>democracy.
>>
>>Get over it.
>
> ROFL Who sells you this stuff? I'm starting to understand why the
> top 10 political science programs in the world are all American.
I'm telling you how it actually works. You can refuse to believe it if you
like - but you are passing up first hand experience in doing so.
Do your math. There is NO WAY 10 members in a 100 member house can
"dominate" UNLESS they have common cause with enough OTHER members to form
a majority. If they are part of a majority, then that is democracy
functioning as designed - even if it is inconvenient for the government
concerned for that particular measure. Ok..so they lose a vote...and
everyone moves on to the next agenda item.
Please explain how 10 people could out-vote the other 90...and "dominate"
then.
I said outright that people in two-party environments find this very
mentally challenging because it is a view of the world they find utterly
foreign. yet this view is the dominant one among the world's democracies.
Winner take all is used in perhaps 12 countries, while PR is used in 88.
Nextim you look at an OECD table of relativewaelth and well-being among the
top 24 countries, remeber that all but 4 of those 24 countries use
proportional systems....and the 4 who don't are NOT at the top of the list.
I know both systems very well because I lived in winner take all countries
for 35 years and have lived the past 10 years in a PR country. I've tried
to explain how it REALLY works....based on what I see every day. But I can
see you have trouble understanding the profoundly different perspective on
democracy that proportional representation empowers.
> "The correct and proper operation of democracy" is anything but an
> open-and-shut case, and there is no miracle pill.
The pill depends on the illness. PR certainly will address the closed,
two-party, gerrymandered undemocratic Congress currently ruining the US
through a mixture of corruption, patronage and passivity.
> Do you have *any* concept of how politics works?
I certainly - and in far more diverse political environments than the US
Congress.
> What you've just
> described is how politics works when you have a party split in a
> single-member plurality system, as we saw earlier this week when the US
> House passed a Democrat-sponsored bill to allow Americans to buy
> prescription drugs from overseas instead of paying inflated domestic
> prices. However, once that vote was over, the members went back to
> their own side of the aisle and it was business as usual.
Sure. That's fine. Party discipline in the US is realtively weak - and that
is good thing given all the other bad things about the US system.
I can, in reply, point to the way that the Democrats have behaved like
auxilliary republicans for the past several years. Voting for war in Iraq
when a clear amjority of their own supporters were opposed - just one
example. It is now clear their supporters were right. Bush was lying as
many suspected at the time.
So how - in a two-party system - can Democrats hold their representatives to
account forsuch an action? Vote Republican?
They have nowhere to go. Proportional representation gives them somewhere
to go with tier votes. Other choices. Making the politicians MORE
accountable....
Remember....I see it here first hand this is how it works. In the real
world. Before you dismiss me as looney, you need to remond youself that I
am sharing with you actual experience - not polsci theory or hypotheses.
> In a proportional system where one tiny party (say your 45-45-10
> system) with a single dominant interest has the tiebreaking vote, and
> it's an issue that they don't care overmuch about because they have a
> single interest (reparations for slavery, continued occupation of the
> West Bank, universal healthcare, import duties on goods produced in the
> third world, pick one), they'll simply vote with whatever party promises
> to back them on that issue, guaranteeing that in order to get something
> passed that has 55% of the vote, they'll have to pass something that
> perhaps only 10% of the people actually support.
That is unlikely - for reasons already given. If the measure is actively
opposed by the voters of the two major parties and their voters, IT WILL
NOT PASS. To pass, one or other ofthe two major parties MUST suport it. If
THEIR own voters do not lie that, then they will NOT do it.
They may push it down the agenda, stall, buy time, or even vote withthe
other major party to defeat it - then look that minor party in the eye and
say: "Look. You big issue us a goner. It's over. Forget it. The other major
party will support us on this isseus even ifyou won't."
But, more likely, there not be just one minor party - but several. They
will compete with each other for influnce with the government....and the
government will have a slection of possible tails to wag - depending on the
issue.
This last is what actually happen here.
Labour and the Progressive Coalition party are in a minority coalition
government. They are about 4 votes short of a majority with about 56 seats
together.
Parties with more than 4 seats are:
NZ First (centre-right) - 10 mps.
Green party (centre-left) - 9 mps.
United Future (centre-centre) - 8 mps.
ACT (Neo-right) - 8 mps.
..and National (centre-right) - 27 mps.
As you can see, the government only needs 4 more votes to win a given vote.
They can choose from any of 4 parties - from centre-left to far right - and
win the day. They are the government - and have been since 1999 - because
the Greens and United Future prefer a Labour-lead government to a
National-lead government.
The government is a 'dog' with several possible tails it can wag - depending
on the measure that needs support. This why you do not want just 3 parties
in your legislature. You want 8 or 10.
Two biggies - and a nice ideological spread in the middle.
>>>Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
>>>Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
>>>Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky.
>>
>>So what? Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you a right to ban
>>democracy.
>
> No, but it gives me a right to advocate for my own form of it. You
> seem to be denying that anything short of proportional representation is
> actually democracy. Well, sorry, but nearly the entire political and
> academic community disagrees with you.
In the US. Sure. Lots of people are like yourself - prepared to deny the
real-world experience of people like me....and refer to "academic
communities" that are similarly in denial as though that proves anything.
Belive me, I'v e heard it all before. thisis not the first discussion I've
ever had with an American about voting systems. :-)
In the 88 countries that use PR, you find few who would back YOUR view.
Talk to any European and ask them what they think of US democracy. They will
tell you they think it is primitive and not very effective as 'democracy'.
They, like me, have seen something better first hand.
> Single-member plurality *is* a form of democracy. It is a *stable*
> form of democracy because candidates need to appeal to where the
> broadest number of voters are, which is hopefully in the center, and if
> it isn't, then you've got far more problems than just institutional
> structure.
I agree. It is democracy. Just not very good democracy.
> Proportional representation systems make it easier for
> small, radical parties to hijack the political process.
I'll tell you again - just forthe record - this is not true.
What IS true is that in winner take all it is easier for small radical
groups to capture one of the MAJOR parties.
This what happend to the Canadian Conservative party with Brian Mulroney in
1984 - and he ultimately destroyed them - taking them from the largest
majority in canadian history, to just TWO seats out of 301 in 1993.
This what happened the New Zeland labour Party in 1984 - captured by
neo-liberals who unleashed a blitzkrieg of very UN-left policies that
nearly destroyed the Labour Party before they were purged and they formed
the ACT party.
This is what has happened in the US with G W Bush and his band of
neoconservatives who have wanted war and American global hegemony since the
late 1970s.
If anything, PR *reduces* the damage such "capture" by radicals cando -
because the one party they may capture will likely NOT have an majority in
Parliament.
In New Zealand, the capture of BOTH major parties by neo-conservatives is
what DROVE the campaign to adopt proportional representation!!!
So your argument about small groups of radicals in PR systems rings hollow
here.....as I have seen it under winner take all in several countries -
including the United States right now. What the Bush, Rumsfeld, Bennett,
Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney grouping - if not a small band of
extremists hwo have captured high office?
> Come to America and get a political science degree, or just a few
> comparative government courses, from a university that isn't just an
> indoctrination center for anti-American thinking. Then we'll talk
> again. In the meantime, I'll take my professors and my own research
> over your rather thinly veiled contempt for the American system of
> democracy.
LOL! Keep up your studies....
You what makes this even funnier? I was National Secretary and executive
member of the non-partisan coalition that lead the successful campaign to
change the voting system in New Zealand. I sat down with cabinet ministers
and the prime minister and Mps from every party - and people from 200
public organisations in my role at the centre of the campaign.
I have DONE it. So you keep up your studies. You clearly have a way to go
yet before you're done. Make sure you get some travel in. To those 88
countries who must be in upheavel and permanent chaos according to you.
That's why you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about is
so......funny (and sad). Sad for your corner of America - wherever you may
live.
Steve
Interesting that the US Congress passes a bill to allow Americans to take
advantage of more enlightened health policies operated by the Canadian
government.
State-funded health care in Canada allows canadian health providers to sit
dwon with drgu companies - as single buyers - and get GOOD prices for
drugs.
In New Zealand, the same thing is done. "PHARMAC" is the public, single
buyer for all drugs in public hospitals. We get cheap drugs, too.
Maybe one day the two major parties in the US will shed the ideological
blinkers that keep their people sick or poor - or both.
The US seems rich in theory....like Phoenix Rising....and poor in practical
approaches that work well and do good things for citizens.
Universal health care is a no-brainer....I'd never live in a country without
it. I never have.
But you can't tell an American that it works just fine
Well......it works fine unless a neo-right party that has captured power
under winner take all is actively trying to subvert it so their buddies in
insurance companies and private health companies can cash in - like in
Ontario and "new" Labour in Britain.
In New Zealnd, we got past all that neo-conservative sabotage to justify
privatisaiton and things are working fine again.
Steve
>> One easy answer is to revise the number of Congressional reps. The US
>> has one of the worst rep to population ratios on Earth - 1:500,000 at the
>> federal level.
>>
>> The 435 reps have not been increased since 1911...and the US now has 291m
>> people.
>>
>> The UK, with 60m, has over 600 MPs. They also have regional parliaments
>> in Scotland and Wales.
>>
>> Germany, with 80m people, has about 660 federal reps, plus they also have
>> several state legislatures - like the US.
>
> Why are more Rep's a priori a "desirable" thing? I'd rather have 1Rep
> for 500,000 = 435 Reps than 1 Rep for 100,000 = 2175 Reps! In the latter
> case, the power of an indivudal Rep would be nil in most cases!
There are several reasons why more might be good.
1. You might actually be able to get access to your rep if s/he is only
servicing 100,000 people instead of 500,000 people.
2. If a rep only have to please 100,000 people they won't need the same vast
sums required to campaign for 500,000.
Your country has almost 300 million people. For democracy to work, their
representatives must be accessible. The US model is not "scaling" - to use
an IT term. It's thrashing (to use another).
Another improvement would be to change the term to 4 years from 2 years. The
two year terms makes reps sitting ducks for money-men with agendas.
If a rep can stand every 4 years in a district with 100,000 people, then
almost anyone could consider standing - democracy would be "affordable"
again.
With 2,175 reps....perhaps in 10 political parties elected via proportional
representation, they would certainly be small individually - yet with 300
million people, perhaps that is a GOOD thing. No small group can dictate to
the legislature like that. Speakers would represent entire caucuses....and
perhaps significant faciotns within a caucus. Each party would have
speaking time - and decide themselves how best to use it.
Maybe those 2,175 reps would be able to spend more time in their districts
actively working with their voters - and being the link to the federal
government - accessible and connected.
Steve
> I'm a little confused by how that would fix things, too.
>
> What it would do, however, is allow smaller parties to make inroads
> into the legislature, as here and there may exist scattered pockets of
> voters that can elect Greens or Libertarians if the districts were more
> fragmented.
You continue to assume that minor parties = bad, despite all eevidence to
the contrary in 88 democracies that have politically diverse legislatures.
This is no more valid an asumption than the one you attribute to me below.
> Steve, as a Green, would be in favor of this. However,
> like most party loyalists, he seems to believe that the success of his
> party = the success of the country. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't,
> but it can hardly be held as an absolute truth.
That is not an assumption I have made. I assume a legslture more accurately
reflecting the will of voters is a good thing - because I believe democracy
is a good thing.
But you do touch on one of the negative features of the winner take all
(first past the post - FPTP) system wherever it is used.
Partisanism.
In a two-party system like the US, it is "then and us". All politics is seen
through this lens. Hence your easy assumption that as a Green I am
incapable of making a statement of a generally applicable principle or
truth without also having an interested agenda.
That is less of a factor in PR systems where parties with diverse
backgrounds will have to work together to govern a country, region or
municipality.
So...to me...your slotting me away as a "partisan" Green - requiring no
further thought - is a very American thing to do...and is just one more of
those "problems" with American democracy that prevents resolution to any
number of issues facing your country.
Here, there certainly are partisan people...and in politics in a PR
environment, they tend to do badly. It may aid success in a two-p[arty
system....but dishonest partisan behaviour limits possibilities and
undermines success in a PR situation. This is because a PR environment
REQUIRES co-operation and consensus-building. It rewards people and parties
who are constructive and do those things well.
This is one of those "gaps" between the US and Europe.
> I think 435 is a good number. I could see going as high as 600 or
> as low as 400, and I could also see going to a 151-seat Senate (three
> per state plus one for DC) so there would be no split votes from states
> and there would consistently be one Senate election per state every two
> years. However, that's pure thought exercise; if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it, IMHO.
>
> --Phoenix Rising
....and in your eyes.....a legislature where there are only two parties for
300 million people and the representatives are returned to office more than
99% of the time (427 of 431 in 2002) due to gerrymandering and less than
half of all voters actually vote....is a system that isn't broken?
Keep up your studies.....and do some traveling outside the US to the other
democracies thriving out there.
--
Steve
--
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
>>So the "broad church" parties of the Democrats and Republicans will do two
>>things:
>>
>>1. Break up. They only exists as they are because the system offers no
>>other choice.
>>
>>2. Compete actively with a more clear and refined message - for votes.
>
> By which you mean a narrower and less comprehensive policy package
Not at all.
I mean several *competing* comprehensive policy packages - each with its own
set of values underpinning it.
You appear to be used to system where the politicians dictate to you how
things will be. I can see across several posts that you fail to appreciate
that PR fundamentally alters the balance of power betwen voters and
politicians.
It does.
> ... single interests designed to pick up votes at the cost of national
> unity. New Zealand is small, as are most of your 88 countries with PR.
Size is not relevant.
Brasil has PR...and 160 million people.
Russia has a form of PR....and 180 million people.
> Germany is the largest, and their political system could not sustain a
> fracture into much more than the four dominant parties (with a few
> smaller ones) that they already have. They're barely hanging on as it is.
Germany is a great example. They have weathered very well the system shock
of re-absorbing the former communist East Germany.
I have no ideas what you mean by "barely hanging on".
But germany is not the largest country with PR. There are several that are
larger - Indonesia, Japan and the two others named above come to mind.
Interestingly, India use winnertake all....but their regional and ethnic
diversity see their legislature being very diverse anyway. With eleven
official languages they won't be a two-party state any time soon.
>>>>more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
>>>>promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
>>>>higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
>>>>the aforementioned reasons.
>>>>
>>> What aforementioned reasons?
>>
>>This is more a failure on your part to understand than it is a failure on
>>his part to explain himself.
>
> Then perhaps you could highlight for me the point in his post where
> he did.
He said: "Proportional representation would make governments more
competitive ( and thus more honest and open)".
What he meant, I think, was that it makes political *parties* more
competitive. They can't rely on a two-party gerrymander to make votes for
anyone else useless. They have to be *attractive* and not simple the lesser
of two evils...or voters wil vote for someone else.
>>> Fundamentalist parties generally draw votes on claims of being "less
>>>corrupt." It was how the Nazis got started as well.
>>
>>The Nazi cannard. Excellent. There are 88 countries using proportional
>>representation today.....and not a Nazi party in any of them.
>
> And you know all the parties in all 88 of them, I'm sure.
It's your example. Prove me wrong. If it is to be a sound basis for
opposing PR, it MUST be a common problem and you will have no problem
finding legisltures where neo-fascist parties are sneaking and taking over.
>>[snip]
>>Germans were desperate. But even than, Hitler never got more than 40% of
>>the vote in any election. in a PR system, that kept him from governing
>>alone. he had to seize power at the point of a gun - using emergency
>>legislation not much different to the US Patriot Act and its proposed
>>successor.
>
> You call my example of the Nazis a "canard" and then pull out
> standard delusional parallels between America and the Third Reich.
> Sorry, not going there.
Then you miss the point. You seem to rule out a lot of relevant things
because you don't like them.
You can't be a very good academic if you do that. Seriously.
Examine the US patriot Act I and proposed II - and compare the emergency
powers that the allies forced the Germans to include in the Weimar Republic
Constitution - in the hope of PREVENTING a Hitler.....except they actually
enabled one.
Some Americans, like yourself, have an amazing propensity to stuff your
heads down a hole when impleasant truths come knocking. It MUST be the
years of propaganda and related conditioning. I grew up in North America.
the United States holds no secrets for me. That may sound arrogant - but I
say it to let you know that this behavious pattern is one I have seen so
many times in the past....when the government line conflicts with the facts
- all you see is American arses poking into the sky as far as the ey can
see.....heads firmly planted in a nice, dark hole. Safe.
Since 9/11 it has been particularly bad. Understandably. But with the Bush
Junta (Gore Vidal has that one right) taking advantage of it so
shamelessly, you really do need to open up the old eyes.
>>Look at President Bush. If people knew when they (almost) elected him that
>>he would lead the country into 2 wars.....they would not have voted for
>>him.
>
> If we had known 9/11 was going to happen, it would have been a moot
> point, and without that, there would not have been the two wars.
> Afghanistan was well below the radar screen before that.
Bush was planning to attack Afghanistan in October 2001 BEFORE 9/11
happened. (Gore Videl "Dreaming War" - page 15)
It appears that Al Qaeda and the Taliban leared of a meeting in Berlin in
July 2001 where the Bush Administration conveyed it's attention to attack
to "interested parties" including Pakistani Intelligence. Four days later,
UBL and the Taliban heard about this.
This raises the possibilty that the WTC attack was a pre-emptive attack.
(Guardian - UK - September 26th, 2001)
.....so Afghanistan was already definitely on the radar. So was Iraq
(www.newamericancentury.org).
>>> Generally, the highest-caliber candidates are those found at the
>>>center, because they're the ones who can balance opposing poles and
>>>still have a sense of self-identity.
>>
>>Or they are gormless crawlers who agree with everyone.....
>
> No one can agree with everyone. But thank you for your disparaging
> remarks towards the center.
You need to give weight to the word "or". "Or they are......"
Precision in understanding will help you in your studies - otherwise you may
misinterpret what others have said and that would not be good.
You cannot credibly claim to be unaware of politicians who equivocate...and
try to please everyone.
> I'm guessing you're a member of one of the
> parties that would have been shown the door under single-member
> plurality systems.
I'm a voter who wasn't satisfied with the limited choice on offer....so I
helped to change the system so it offered more choice.
The voter is king. Maybe not at your house, but definitely at mine.
>>>They're also best at relating to
>>>the widest swath of the American electorate. However, PR systems tend
>>>not to foster the development of centrist parties; they foster the
>>>development of extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based ones.
>>
>>This is an utterly fatuous statement. You've made it up.
>>
>>If what you are saying is true, then at this very moment 88 countries are
>>being governed by "extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based" minor
>>parties.
>>
>>Let me save you some time. They aren't.
>
> They aren't necessarily *governed* by them, but those extreme
> parties have a foothold in the government that would be denied them by
> single-member plurality.
"In government"?
Or simply seats in the legislature? There is a big difference.
>>[snip]
>>
>>>It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
>>>UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
>>>system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
>>>remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
>>>before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
>>>are generally tempered by realism in the process.
>>
>>The UK Parliament has about 7 parties in it - as does the Canadian
>>Parliament. Why? Becasue anyone can get his name on the ballot for about
>>$300 or $1000 dollars - depending on what country you refer to.
>
> And you consider this a good thing? You would like seeing porn
> stars elected to the legislature?
Elected? Maybe - if that's what voters want. On the ballot - why not?
...and what's wrong with porn stars? My doctor is a former prostitute who
went to medical school. She wrote a book about it.
http://www.authorsden.com/laurenroche
It was a best seller. She's a very good doctor and a fine person.
The NZ Parliament also has one trans-sexual - also a former prostitute.
"She" is an excellent MP - and a former two-term Mayor of Carterton - a
very conservative farming town.
Having read several thousand words by you already today, you seem to have
too many preconceptions to do well in this world - especially academically.
You need to open your mind a bit. I'm 45 years old...and been to university
in 3 countries. I'm not one to brag about academic qualifications because
I know a smart person can learn a hell of a lot more and faster without
going to university at all. I also have had my share of academics who give
you a bad mark if they don't like what you said. Take the same paper to
someone else and get an A. I see degrees in that context - be they mine or
anyone else's. Subjective - at best.
>>In the US, many states require thousands of signatures on a petition in
>>order to even be on the ballot if you aren't a Democrat or Republican.
>>
>>Just another corrupt method used to restrict democracy and reduce voter
>>choice.
>>
>>Judging from your various posts, restricted democracy and reduced choice
>>are your primary concerns.
>
> Actually, denying fringe parties a foothold into the halls of power
> of the land I love is my primary concern.
Same thing. To do that you have to look your fellow Americans in the eye and
tell them their vote MUST be worthless.
Wasn't that sort of behaviour the same thing that lead to the American
Revolution? Interesting that you would rather suppress - and create
extremists - than engage and create fellow moderates.
But that seems to be the American Way - polarise, co-erce...and kill if
necessary. Any reprisal is a crime and terrorism.
You adopt the same approach to depriving your fellow Americand of fair,
democratic representation.
>>Butlook what it is doing to America! You fear PR....but LOOK!!!
>>
>>Look at what is already happening.
>>
>>PR would fix most of it. All America really needs is MORE democracy - not
>>less.
>
> You have a lot of confidence. Perhaps one day you will have wisdom
> as well.
Heh.....Yeah...right. Thanks.
>>I live in acountry that uses PR and the claims you make are not born out
>>by real-world experience.
>
> I live in the real world, too, and I read the news from many
> countries. The more parties, the more politics. You claim PR would
> reduce corruption? I give you Italy.
Italy back at you: despite a culture of corruption and a history of violent
fascism, they now maintain a diverse, thriving democracy and remain one of
the most prosperous countries in Europe. More prosperous than
Britain....who use single-member plurality.
How can that be?
...and corruption.
Nixon / Watergate?
Reagan Iran/Contra?
Clinton/Whitewater?
...and on and on. A voting system won't change a culture of corruption.
What it WILL do is give voters the means to hold the corrupt to account.
> You claim it would "fix" America? I give you glasses. We're doing
> a lot better than NZ. You just don't like what we're doing.
"Better" in what way? I have clean air, clean water, blue starry skies and a
sounding sea. I have cheap universal health care, good public education and
sound infrastructure. I own several acres, some ponies and a few rental
properties. I live in a vibrant and diverse multi-party democracy where my
vote always counts and I have members of Parliament who see the world as I
do.....from a Green perspective....and we value this world and the life on
it in a way that your President clearly does not.
We also value the truth in a way that he does not.
You're right. I don't like lying murderers in the top job. I consider that
adequate grounds to see this country as being better and more fortunate
that your is right now.
I'm not anti-American. I work for an American company. I have many friends
and colleagues who are American. I've lived in the US. It's a great
country.
It's main failing is that it lies to itself....and in this decade, the
cumulative effect - and cost - of that self-deception is growing ever more
painful and expensive.
People who try to dispel the delusions are described as
anti-American....despite actually being loyal friends who often risk pain
and personal loss to try to get the message across to a dear friend who is
going through a bad time.
If Americans could only learn that their law ends at their borders....it
would be a good start.
Your leaders created Hussein and Bin Laden while pursuing secret agendas
decades ago.
If American democracy had been more open - and stronger - would voters have
approved the acts that lead to 9/11?
That isn't an anti-American statement. It is a confession of hope that your
country will learn the true limits of power....and avoid more mistakes like
Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan.....and all the rest.
All of those were hidden from voters....or voters were lied to about them.
Giving real democracy a whirl might help.
--
Steve
The Frog
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in
>news:f6q2ivg3mgcda9ooa...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
>>
>> Republicans:
>>
>> 1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
>>
>> 2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
>>
>> 2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
>>
>> 3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
>>
>> 4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
>>
>> 5) More Texans registered as Republicans
>
>
> If Texas is so Republican, then why can't
>Republicans win more Congressional seats?
The COURTS drew the lines for race prefernce. They wished to insure
minoritiy wins. They were unwilling to draw reasonable lines and let
the chips fall where they may.
It was all about race.
>> Why would anyone believe that the district map that was imposed on
>> Texas by the courts reflects Texans' political will?
>> Why can't the people of Texas draw their own map?
>
>
> The people of Texas aren't asking for
>redistricting. Only Tom Delay and Governor
>Perry are. Even the GOP Atty General says
>the current map is valid and legal.
We all are.....I am, everyone I know wants redistricting.
Most of the resistance is from outsiders like you who only see a
political problem because of it........
> Texas is mired in debt, libraries are
>being closed, textbook purchases curtailed,
>family health coverage cancelled, and yet
>the GOP insists on spending $11 million
>on a redistricting session that no one wants.
>
> Is that what "fiscal conservatism" as
>come down to?
Ask California and Democrat Davis.......
Mitchell Holman
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:07:24 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in
>>news:f6q2ivg3mgcda9ooa...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
>>>
>>> Republicans:
>>>
>>> 1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
>>>
>>> 2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
>>>
>>> 2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
>>>
>>> 3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
>>>
>>> 4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
>>>
>>> 5) More Texans registered as Republicans
>>
>>
>> If Texas is so Republican, then why can't
>>Republicans win more Congressional seats?
>
> The COURTS drew the lines for race prefernce. They wished to insure
> minoritiy wins.
And the GOP wants to draw lines to make
sure that the GOP wins. They have admitted
it. They don't want fair elections - they
want GOP victories. And they will keep
redrawing the lines until they get them.
It is called "Perrymandering".
They were unwilling to draw reasonable lines and let
> the chips fall where they may.
> It was all about race.
Sure. Given the history of whites
marginalizing the black vote by breaking
up their neighborhoods into "safe" white
districts. Undoing racism takes years.
Hint: The current plan has the blessing
of the GOP-dominated US Supreme Court. Or
are they just a bunch of liberal activists
as well?
>
>
>
>>> Why would anyone believe that the district map that was imposed on
>>> Texas by the courts reflects Texans' political will?
>>> Why can't the people of Texas draw their own map?
>>
>>
>> The people of Texas aren't asking for
>>redistricting. Only Tom Delay and Governor
>>Perry are. Even the GOP Atty General says
>>the current map is valid and legal.
>
> We all are.....I am, everyone I know wants redistricting.
> Most of the resistance is from outsiders like you who only see a
> political problem because of it........
Name one major Texas daily paper that has
editorialized in favor of redistricting. Even
the far-right Dallas Morning News (which endorsed
all the statewide GOP candidates) has come out
against it.
>
>
>
>> Texas is mired in debt, libraries are
>>being closed, textbook purchases curtailed,
>>family health coverage cancelled, and yet
>>the GOP insists on spending $11 million
>>on a redistricting session that no one wants.
>>
>> Is that what "fiscal conservatism" as
>>come down to?
>
> Ask California and Democrat Davis.......
Yes - another GOP "cost is no object"
grab for political power.
Dave Simpson
discussing Texas's redistricting problems last night.
Steve wrote:
(Yes, Steve, I said everything, not "allegedly said" it.)
> > Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
> > candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
> > gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
> > impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
> > simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
> > but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
> > there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
> > ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
I'm going to first quickly address something you wrote farther below
(address it here, out of order) to deal with it first before going to
the more interesting statement you made here, on a related issue.
"Congress can change the situation any time it wanted." Yes, that
is correct, as you and I both know. Congress only need modify the
rules that require single-member districts for the states. They may
have to keep them in effect for the states with less than five seats
apportioned to them, but the rest can be changed to P.R. promptly, and
"automated" (change the law to state specifically that P.R. will apply
to the states as a whole for all states with five or more seats --
making it "automatic" when a smaller state gets a fifth seat).
Congress could then, at the same time, get together with the
remaining states' legislatures and see to it that they have
gerrymander-free districts in the cases of states with two, three, or
four seats. In theory, it ought to be easy, and it has to be better
than the nonsense we see now.
> One easy answer is to revise the number of Congressional reps. The US has
> one of the worst rep to population ratios on Earth - 1:500,000 at the
> federal level.
Be careful, and look before you leap. I.e., don't rush to do wrong
in the other direction. I have advocated an increase in the size of
the House of Representatives in Washington a number of times
(depending on the rational to which to choose to appeal to the people,
either a straight 500 members, ten times that of the Senate, to a more
theoretically-based 600 or 625, laying down in advance a size prepared
to handle the year 2050 or even 2100), but have qualified my
statements by explaining why it might make sense. The burden of proof
lies very, very heavily on me, and on you here, and on anyone
advocating an increase in the size of Congress. We already have
enough problems as it is with the Congress we have now, including all
the associated staff membership! As with P.R. itself, too many
big-government left-wing types simply want a bigger government along
with even more power accrued to it from the states and localities in
the USA where most of that power constitutionally should always be.
Still, the size of the House of Representatives (or state
legislature, at least the lower house) is a valid issue -- yes, it is
too small, currently -- and may be worth looking at before considering
other, headier issues, such as going to a combination of
place-population representation and weighting, which is an alternative
worth considering for a unicameral legislature in the states
(representation by counties), and even in Congress though many would
prefer a popular single body with proportional representation to
balance the Senate with two ambassadors from each State.
(Area-population weighting is a big deal in Europe nowadays with the
EU membership and choosing how many nations get how many seats on an
EU Council. This could be analogous to a single-body Congress with
respect to each state's membership and what weight each would have.
It's an interesting side issue inasmuch as it may be a
place-people-balancing alternative for new unicameral state
legislatures in an ideal USA.)
http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/hom01/
etc.
Let's look at your statements again below, and then I'll add some
more notes for you and other interested readers.
> The 435 reps have not been increased since 1911...and the US now has 291m
> people.
>
> The UK, with 60m, has over 600 MPs. They also have regional parliaments in
> Scotland and Wales.
>
> Germany, with 80m people, has about 660 federal reps, plus they also have
> several state legislatures - like the US.
>
> Canada, with 30m people, 10 provinces, one autonomous region (Nunavut) and
> one territory, has over 300 MPs.
Note that we'd have to have the law (including Constitutional law)
changed. OK; that's assumed now.
Next -- adding weight to your arguments. Below are echoes as well
as more theoretical views concerning how large a representative body
should be (such as the "cube root rule").
Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives
More:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=31&t=881&
http://tibbs1973.tripod.com/column_012201_2.html
Parliamentary Size
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc03/default.htm
Of note here are the square root (look up Penrose) and the cube root
"rule."
NOTE: Our population is expected to level off in growth in
mid-century, then remain stable or possibly decline. Preparing for
the year 2050 rather than 2100 or "an infinite time horizon" is not
necessarily short-sighted.
Dave Simpson
who has owned Shugart and Taagepura's "Seats and Votes" for many
years
Dave Simpson
> Why are more Rep's a priori a "desirable" thing? I'd rather have 1Rep
> for 500,000 = 435 Reps than 1 Rep for 100,000 = 2175 Reps! In the latter
> case, the power of an indivudal Rep would be nil in most cases!
Obviously an enlarged House of Representives introduces the
all-too-real concerns of worsening an already-bloated Washington, DC,
establishement (the members of Congress often have large, powerful,
unaccountable staffs).
Still, it makes sense; there is a good reason for it. The House is
the body of Congress that was meant to be popular and democratic,
closest to the people. The size of Congress has been frozen for
several decades, making each Representative support a district that
has more and more people. This is so in spite of the reallocation of
House seats after every decennial census.
The theory and reasoning are all in favor of increasing the size of
the House. The problems that already exist that would be made worse
are not denied, but rather than give up, one must be willing to work
at this, such as to limit expenditures by the offices of the Members
of Congress, or even to the size of their official staffs.
In considering a reasonable increase to the House, the numbers range
anywhere from a useful higher number (500 is ten times the size of the
Senate, and we could even make that a "constantly applicable" rule,
adjusting the House to be ten times that of the Senate, or some other
multiple; 600 is particularly useful because it has so many divisors,
which would work to define the various sub-groups formed by this body,
committees, panels, and so on; 625 also is a useful number). The
thing to do when considering the new size of the House is to look
ahead to what the ultimate population will be for the USA and to try
to plan for that remaining growth in selecting the new size. (Due to
demographic as well as sociological changes, fertility continues to
drop, and population growth in the USA is expected to shrink, and the
total population is expected eventually to level off in growth and
become stable, or even deline slightly. This long-term size is what
ideally would be considered when enlarging the House.)
Many claim that history as well as theory support a size that is the
cube root of the electorate (roughly half the population). Others
note that the most useful size for representation is the square root
of the electorate. The latter yields sizes that are far too high,
though the square root values are still useful in allocating seats for
representational bodies that are based on a combination of areas and
populations, with varying population densities. The EU has to face
this issue with utmost importance with national representation in the
EU on a Council. (This would be analogous to area-population weighted
representation in a unicameral state legislature or unicameral
Congress.)
On a more-contemporary US note, seeking proportional representation
for all fifty states would mean most likely at least five seats per
state, and this is impractical, given that we'd want at the least,
normally, to expect something like a House that is five times the
current size, which is impractically and expensively large. Solving
the small-state problem is tricky; going to regional representation
seems sensible, yet is as anti-federal as an all-national,
representatives-at-large, alternative.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> I'm a little confused by how that would fix things, too.
Again, laying aside the political issue and the ability to give
losing ideas a better chance, and keeping only to politics-free, or
neutral issues:
Most importantly, it would eliminate gerrymandering by eliminating
districts.
Secondly, by eliminating districts, it would eliminate one of the
worst problems associated with, sadly, as-local-as-possible
representation, the ideal in theory for the House (but corrupted by
the over-growth of the federal government and its routine dealing with
citizens directly rather than indirectly through the states, as ought
normally to be the case): it would greatly reduce if not eliminate (so
far as states would still be beneficiaries) the localized
"pork-barreling" phenomenon.
> I think 435 is a good number. I could see going as high as 600 or
> as low as 400, and I could also see going to a 151-seat Senate (three
> per state plus one for DC) so there would be no split votes from states
> and there would consistently be one Senate election per state every two
> years. However, that's pure thought exercise; if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it, IMHO.
One must avoid breaking something more when trying to fix it,
naturally, but it is broken now. Gerrymandering is a disgrace, and
pork-barreling is a long and well-known problem from the publicly
accepted overgrowth of the federal government into state and local
matters. It definitely is broken, the case for increasing the size of
the House has far more weight than the case for the status quo (which
actually is weak), and an increase is more likely than not to be an
improvement rather than a mistake. One excludes the obviously
insensible cases such as a House of 2,000 or more members. (Even
1,000 is far too high.)
DC is not a state and should not get a seat in the Senate. Ideally,
DC would re-acquire its Virginian territory, then give residents on
the prospective sides of the Potomac the right to vote in the
according state's elections, and be represented by those state's
delegates to Congress.
600 is very useful given the number of divisors that can be used to
define the size of the various panels, groups, committees,
sub-committees, etc., and actually give an intellectual or academic
appeal to these bureaucratic crazy goings-on.
500 is ten times the size of the Senate. A good piece of study
would be to look at the earliest Congresses, then compare them to
those later, and find out what the ratio of representatives was to
Senators for the various states as well as the comparative House and
Senate sizes. Is ten times, twenty times, the square, etc., a valid
rule to try to apply to resizing the House?
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> I think 435 is a good number. I could see going as high as 600 or
> as low as 400, and I could also see going to a 151-seat Senate (three
> per state plus one for DC) so there would be no split votes from states
> and there would consistently be one Senate election per state every two
> years. However, that's pure thought exercise; if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it, IMHO.
Actually, it is broken now, and there are alternatives to P.R. that
also merit consideration. The first area, of course, is to
rationalize and correct the existing and attempted gerrymandering of
the districts. Nobody can defend these incumbent-protecting,
party-protecting misuse of the power to define the Congressional
districts.
Then you can change the vote for each Representative, and at the
same time, the Senate, and actually all other single-member office
elections, by going to the approval vote, which is the best way to
select one individual.
Other than that, there's a radical alternative for the House of
Representatives that is inarguably superior to the mess we have now,
even if by going to this alternative we end up with a number of truly
incompetent people in Washington: Random selection in place of
election for the House -- a glorified draft or form of jury duty.
People who dislike the lack of women or minorities in Congress now,
but realize quotas are illegitimate, could only smile at the prospect
of drawing citizens from random, in each district in the USA, to go to
U.S. House of Representatives. (It might work out well in the state
legislatures, too!)
Yes, even random selection is better for the House than what we have
now.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> You continue to assume that minor parties = bad, despite all eevidence to
> the contrary in 88 democracies that have politically diverse legislatures.
Truly negligeable parties can be bad. Even with the less-small of
smaller parties, it can be bad if they have undue weight in a
governing body, which is what's more serious a concern than
"instability" or squabbling.
Getting rid of the negligeable-party problem, of course, is easy, by
using a fair, reasonable threshold (minimum fraction of vote to get at
least one seat).
The threshold, to be fair, must range somewhere between the size
beyond which nobody can deny there is significance (What's a
significant-sized minority of any population, that we should respect?
What's a significant fraction of war losses? What's a significant
proportion of anything, sick people, bad drivers, whatever, where we
cannot or should not avoid giving it attention?) and the lower end of
the range, where bare significance meets triviality or the state of
being negligeable (Population fraction of homosexuals? Threshold for
some issue that cannot be neglected?).
Normally in my experience the upper limit is between ten and twenty
per cent, and the lower limit is around one to two per cent.
Statistically speaking, it is looking at things in terms of one and
two standard deviations from the mean at one end (tail).
The actual size of the threshold ought to correspond sensibly to the
total number of seats, the size of the political body. A good
starting point for determining the threshold is to set it to the
fraction corresponding to the value of one seat divided by the total
number. (Five seats, 20%; Ten seats, 10%, 100 seats, 1%) The number
can be revised based on other criteria and real-world observations.
(In a truly large body, having only one seat total makes no sense, so
we look elsewhere, such as the 1-2%, two-standard-deviations idea I
mentioned earlier, for the minimum.)
As far as number of parties, it always will be an imprecise
representation of all political views among the electorate, but
obviously, the more the number, the more precise the representation
is, and the less the number of parties, the less precise all political
views are represented. This nobody can deny. It is ridiculous on its
face to state that our two-major-party system implies it is an
accurate representation of our political views, and that generally we
are one or another type. Nobody would dare be that simplistic in
claiming to be accurately describing our society! As a practical
issue there is "leeway" in party choice, seeking a "best-fit" choice,
but this only serves also to confirm the lack of precision with fewer
political parties that I mentioned above.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> There are several reasons why more might be good.
>
> 1. You might actually be able to get access to your rep if s/he is only
> servicing 100,000 people instead of 500,000 people.
> 2. If a rep only have to please 100,000 people they won't need the same vast
> sums required to campaign for 500,000.
Note something about P.R.: proponents point out (and upon
reflection, it makes good sense practically) that with P.R., the idea
isn't necessarily to get all the seats, or (correspondingly) as much
of the vote as possible, but only that fraction that a party wants --
or believes it realistically can get. (In practice, it of course
would try for more, and ideally as much as it could get.)
> With 2,175 reps....perhaps in 10 political parties elected via proportional
> representation, they would certainly be small individually - yet with 300
> million people, perhaps that is a GOOD thing. No small group can dictate to
> the legislature like that. Speakers would represent entire caucuses....and
> perhaps significant faciotns within a caucus. Each party would have
> speaking time - and decide themselves how best to use it.
>
> Maybe those 2,175 reps would be able to spend more time in their districts
> actively working with their voters - and being the link to the federal
> government - accessible and connected.
A House of Representatives over 2,000 members would be a dead issue.
It would be impossibly expensive and very impractical. What I have
tried to point out is that to desire a somewhat, and yes,
significantly, enlarged House is not the same as the straw-man level
that you bring up here (even if that wasn't your intention).
In realistic terms we're looking about anywhere from 450-650
members. It is my guess that people will balk at 700, certainly at
1,000, and I believe 1,000 members just won't cut it. Not that this
is the defining criterion, but a real-world additional note is to
desire to keep the size of current facilities pretty much the same as
they are now, and to trade off more members as much as possible for
reduced staff, forcing bloated staff to be shrunk to make room for
official, as opposed to unoffical, members of government. (Cut their
staffs in half, I say, as a Scrooge that supports an enlarged House of
Representatives.)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> catch it on CSPAN.
Note -- we are not discussing going to a parliamentary system, which
is a perfectly reasonable thing in its own right and something that
should be tried by some states, if desired.
> What a hoot, I am half expected those guys to start beating the hell out
> of each other.
My very-conservative friend and I in Seattle said one time that we
need that in the House of Representatives once in a while, with the
C-SPAN folks calling the blows over the air.
In a more academic manner: Some say P.R. and many parties would mean
the chance for all kinds of conflicts. But shouldn't that be normal
if public opinion is full of conflicts?
> They surely have a much more livlier debate than the American house
> or Senate, hell compared to the British politicians , our politicians act as
> if they are dead.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Maybe if there were 4 or 6 Senators from each state - or maybe 10. Why not?
> A state like California with only 2 senators - but 30 million people?
To get P.R. in the Senate, realistically you'd have to have at least
five votes for each state, and that would lead to an unrealistically
high size of the Senate. It's the House that is the large body; the
Senate is not the same as the House. The Senate should not be vastly
increased in size. (In the most extreme case, the same size or larger
than the House, and with other changes, it's simply a second House,
which is a worthless, wasteful, cumbersome piece of bureaucracy and
nothing better.)
The Senate is not the same as the House of Representatives. The
Senate has representation based on the states, and their members are
ambassadors from the states, in effect, with strong plenpotentiary
powers. (In fact, in modern times, they have no allegiance to the
states and often tell the states what to do, rather than vice versa.)
It also is meant to be aristocratic rather than popular and
democratic, though since the early twentieth century it has been made
more democratic in part (conversion to direct election of Senators).
Equal suffrage (voting, vote weighting) in the Senate cannot be
changed without permission from the states that are affected. (The
Constitution must be amended to change suffrage in the Senate, but
amendments may not deprive states of equal suffrage in the Senate
without the permission of the states that are subject to that
deprivation.)
About the only way to change this is to abolish the Senate (again,
it would require amending the Constitution). After the illegitimate
activist Warren Court ruling in the 1960s about state legislatures,
these legislatures have two houses that essentially duplicate each
other, and this is a waste; also, in today's tough economic times,
costs are saved considerably if they abolished the upper houses. In
the case of abolishing the U.S. Senate, small states would be
reluctant to ratify such an abolition.
Various area-person weighting schemes are under consideration in
such cases as in the EU, where national represention is by area
(nation) but also is weighted by population. The Penrose square-root
rule or formula is one way to do this. (If I still have the figures I
wrote down, and find them, I may post them, considering the analogous
weighting for the fifty states based the 2000 census.)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> >.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
> >proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
> >just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you may
> >not even be aware you are exhibiting.
> Nice try, but I'm not convinced. Particularly when you say that I
> harbor a "contempt for democracy" when I prefer single-member plurality,
> which any political scientist worth their weight will tell you *is* a
> viable and indeed far more stable form of democracy than PR.
The "contempt for democracy" is a weak leftist argument, an appeal
to emotion as well as misstatement of fact.
Note that solutions to the existing single-member districts are easy
enough: We can go to approval voting (the best way to elect a single
person), as well as even random selection from each district. (We
could do random selection from an entire state as well, to fill
multiple seats.)
> >You're really just moaning about the correct and proper operation of
> >democracy.
> >
> >Get over it.
>
> ROFL Who sells you this stuff? I'm starting to understand why the
> top 10 political science programs in the world are all American.
>
> "The correct and proper operation of democracy" is anything but an
> open-and-shut case, and there is no miracle pill.
Support for proportional representation in the USA is mainly from
leftists who seek an alternative way to get into government ideas that
have failed in the "marketplace of ideas."
That's not the whole story, however. The two major parties work to
lock up government for themselves; they discriminate in the laws
against other parties, for example, when it comes to ballot access(!).
> In a proportional system where one tiny party (say your 45-45-10
> system) with a single dominant interest has the tiebreaking vote, and
> it's an issue that they don't care overmuch about because they have a
> single interest (reparations for slavery, continued occupation of the
> West Bank, universal healthcare, import duties on goods produced in the
> third world, pick one), they'll simply vote with whatever party promises
> to back them on that issue, guaranteeing that in order to get something
> passed that has 55% of the vote, they'll have to pass something that
> perhaps only 10% of the people actually support.
That is true. What this is sometimes called is the "kingmaker"
phenomenon, and what it means is that this smaller party has far more
power than it has the support of the people -- implying it has far
more power than it deserves.
This is also the typical argument made against the need for a
supermajority vote on certain especially-important issues, because it
gives more power to the minority, the increase being equivalent to the
difference between the supermajority requirement and one-half.
The ultimate end result of such power-shifting, of course, is the
demand for unanimity, and what accompanies it, the (single-vote,
absolute) veto.
Yet we believe there should still be supermajority votes on certain
issues.
> Single-member plurality *is* a form of democracy. It is a *stable*
> form of democracy because candidates need to appeal to where the
> broadest number of voters are, which is hopefully in the center, and if
> it isn't, then you've got far more problems than just institutional
> structure. Proportional representation systems make it easier for
> small, radical parties to hijack the political process.
This last sentence is the risk we undertake if we were to convert to
P.R.. Note that the worst excesses of this would be countered by the
threshold, with a value that is reasonable. (Let's say 10-20%)
There are problems with the "duopoly" we have that ought to be
resolved, and we aren't obliged to enshrine the current two-party
system as something that is as sacred as Social Security (neither are
sacred, except as "sacred cows"). I have seen one example of reform
that truly instituted the two-party system and it was perverse to me.
If you like single-member offices, what is needed to make these
contests the best they can be, other than a level playing field for
other parties, is to go from the plurality vote to the approval vote
(vote for as many candidates as you want). (Ranking or weighing
candidates cannot be relied upon; the approval vote means an equal
vote for every candidate the voter likes. Whoever gets the most total
votes wins.)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Maybe if there were 4 or 6 Senators from each state - or maybe 10. Why not?
> A state like California with only 2 senators - but 30 million people?
As I explained earlier, on the original thread, the Senate is not
the same as the House. The House is representing the people (and
after the Civil War, U.S. citizens, in fact), and has been intended to
be both popular and democratic. The Senate has been intended to be
aristocratic and a part of federalism that enables the small states to
be protected against the larger states (size being nowadays defined as
the relative population fraction of the nation as a whole).
That earlier Progressive-era changes included more democracy that
undermined this to some extent, not to mention the way things have
worked since the New Deal, are irrelevent.
You cannot get 4-6 Senators (the reasonable minimum for P.R.) from
each state without at least doubling the size of the Senate, which
makes no sense (it's not like the House, where an increase makes some
sense, and even with the House, an increase, while significant,
wouldn't be an enormous increase, which is impractical -- do you
expect a new Capitol building to handle the much larger numbers, along
with more office buildings?)
There is a way to do this to get P.R. in all the states, though, in
a special kind of new unicameral Congress composed of 500 members,
which is fully within reason as far as a total size, and using a
scheme that continues to protect the small vs. large states, and keep
"the Grand Compromise" intact.
The two existing houses of Congress are combined into one, by
dividing the new Congress of 500 members into half. With one-half the
total seats, 250, each state gets five seats. That's five seats per
state, which immediately makes P.R. applicable to all states. Your
thought has been made real.
What is done with the remaining 250 seats is to apportion them as in
the House of Representatives, giving each state an approportionment
based the size of their population, using the same method that is used
today, which slightly favors the larger states but which eliminates
the worst odd situations such as the "Alabama paradox." The
apportionment would be for a total of 250 rather than for 435 seats.
Each state would get at least one seat, of course, and so the minimum
number of seats total for any state (such as Wyoming, in reality)
would be six (6) seats.
With six seats minimum per state in this new unicameral Congress,
the vote threshold for P.R. to get one seat would be around one-sixth
(16 2/3%). 20% or 15% (roughly the same as one standard deviation at
the tail from the rest of the distribution, or the "mainstream") would
be suitable choices for the vote threshold.
There -- Grand Compromise retained, total Congressional delegation
shrunk by 35 members (reducing costs), going to a unicameral
legislature (saving costs and political game-playing between the two
existing houses), and enabling P.R. to be applied to all states, with
not five, but six seats minimum per state.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> >.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
> >proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
> >just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you may
> >not even be aware you are exhibiting.
> Nice try, but I'm not convinced. Particularly when you say that I
> harbor a "contempt for democracy" when I prefer single-member plurality,
> which any political scientist worth their weight will tell you *is* a
> viable and indeed far more stable form of democracy than PR.
Some factual distinctions and real-world observations are in order,
which boost your side of this argument.
The problem with PR is that it is promoted mainly by lefties who
have lost out otherwise at the ballot box. Promoting PR by their
typical emotional, often-childish behavior does tend to wreck their
causes. PR and support for it in democratic, popularly-represented
bodies is a good idea that unfortunately is tainted and carries a lot
of disease-ridden baggage with it, as a result.
What's ironic is that these same lefties probably steam more than
anyone else when the mainstream-Northeast Establishmentarian Wall
Street Journal editorial board and other such people discuss
proportional representation as well as third parties and independent
candidates with openly expressed contempt. Yet they work to earn at
least part of that contempt when they either bash critics emotionally,
or behave as dupes in belief of PR or "democracy" as some magic
elixir, which it isn't. I'm in favor of it, but for the
intellectually and otherwise mature, truly academic reasons as well as
practical reasons, which are reflected in the real world (major
parties often are chosen not out of attraction, but to minimize harm
done to us; no matter who, everyone gets "betrayed" too often by other
parts of whatever party they favor, etc.).
The "progressives" [sic] have to accept sharing power with, and
probably being out-voted by, paleo-conservatives or right-wing
populists, who are the closest thing we have nowadays to Hamilton,
despite historical torture by the likes of Michael Lind, if we went to
P.R.. Racist black-American, Hispanic, or sexist women's left-wing
parties would have to accept sharing power, and even being out-voted
by, the Religious Right, and even face a men's rights anti-feminism
party. The lefties S A Y they're willing to do it, but do others
believe them, really?
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> >Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
> >candidate for proportional representation. [...]
> >Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
> >vote.
> Would that it were so simple.
In reality, it would be that simple, in cases such as Texas.
Use the same seat-allocation formula for the state's seats that
applies to all the states as far as allocation of seats of the House
of Representatives. There; anyone contesting the allocation is
self-discrediting.
> PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
> dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers. Look at
> the hard-right parties in Israel. Look at the history of Italian
> politics. Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
> Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
> Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky.
Okay, and let's say there was a 5% threshold to get a seat, and we
had five seats:
Splinter Party 1 seat
Democrat 2 seats
Republican 2 seats
If we had more than five seats, the splinter party might or might
not get more seats; the greater the number of seats, the smaller the
splinter's share would be relative to the others.
But, let's assume that neither the Dems nor the GOP have a majority
and the Splinter Party holds the crucial tie-breaking seat or seats.
> Think
> of what the currently matter-of-course bills to organize the House and
> Senate would be like under that.
Actually, it's far from always "matter-of-course"; it depends on the
bill. I'll note ahead of time, at risk of being a spoiler, that in
Congress the votes are not that often in the interests of states or
even localities(!), but are partisan, or failing that,
ideological-political more of the time.
> The raving minority group could
> extract severe concessions from whatever group they felt most strongly
> aligned with, or could simply let it be known that there would be a
> bidding war of political favors for their support in organizing the
> legislature.
Yes -- the "kingmaker."
It's the analogue of arguing against a supermajority vote because of
the increased power of the minority, the worst case being that of any
member of a group having a veto.
But how often does this really happen, and how small would the other
parties be, if they had a chance to compete equally and thereby grow,
normally? And, the "splinter" fear is taken care of by a reasonable
threshold. For example, with a state with five seats, a threshold
would be around 20% of the vote, and the Splinter Party's 6% vote
wouldn't qualify it for any seat. Instead, the five would be divided
3-2 or 2-3 for the majors, depending on the remaining fractions below
47% for each, and if tied, they might "time-share" the seat, hold a
new election (possibly), or do something else such as leave it up to
the state government to make an appointment, treating it the same as
for a vacancy, etc.
> ... [T]he harmful fringe elements that would truly rend
> the fabric of America to pursue their own divisive, narrow-minded
> interests are shut out of the legislature, forcing them to moderate
> themselves and amalgamate into the major parties rather than forcing the
> major parties to kowtow to them. This is a *good* thing, unless you
> happen to be one of the rabid members of those parties.
Phoenix, I see nothing wrong with four to six political parties
active all over the USA, or even some restricted to regional appeal (a
Dixie Party or a Religious Right party appealing to the Bible Belt),
just as in a long-term view I see nothing wrong with division of North
America north of the Rio Grande into four to six nations eventually.
In the case here (political parties), it's perfectly sensible to
divide the Democratic Party's establishentarians (incrementalist,
within-the-system movement toward Continental European democratic
socialism and statism) from the activists (farther-left, more
ambitious, "progressive" [sic] and even more defiant of the
Constitution and US interests than the rest of the Democrats), and
equally with the GOP something as was described well by Amitai
Etzioni, a division into Whigs (libertarian, "economic conservatives")
and Tories (nationalistic, authoritarian "social conservatives" who
presumably would keep the eagle and flag as their political symbols).
The GOP also might see a split between Democrat-Lite Rockefeller Wing
Republicans (which include President Bush as well as more-liberal
Colin Powell, and other GOP people in the Northeast such as Chaffee
and Snowe!) and everyone else, or between the Religious Right and most
others.
Even the Buchananite paleocon-populist people might return after no
longer being marginalized (what passes for the Far Right in Washington
has been marginalized and neutered for ages), a much larger party than
a mere splinter or fringe party. (Buchanan drew huge interest in
Washington State, and Perot got something like 25% of the vote there,
which includes some of the most liberal places in this nation.)
The point being made here is that four to six political parties in
the USA would not be "splinters" and wouldn't be restricted to the
narrow-minded ideologues.
Keep the threshold reasonable (smaller body, 15% or one standard
deviation away from the mean; larger body, 2% of two standard
deviations away from the mean) and you eliminate a lot of the
"splinter" problems -- and the arguments corresponding to them in
opposition to P.R..
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Proportional representation at both the state and Federal level in the
> House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
> all is appropriate in my opinion.
Yes -- and with Senate elections, it ought to be changed to the
approval vote (vote for as many candidates as you want; whoever gets
the most votes from everyone wins the election), particularly during
the primaries.
> The current "winner take all" form of electoral representation promulgates
> corruption
It also is misleading. If you have a state like California that
went 51-49 then its huge number of electoral votes ought to be divided
accordingly, not given all to one candidate or the other in this case.
The small states went to "winner-take-all" to boost their clout;
it's a better practice instead to make it allocated on P.R. (as long
as we have the two major parties, split the two extra electoral votes
unless either person gets around 60% or slightly more, in which case
both extra votes go to that person).
Rather than have small states go with "winner-take-all," instead the
primary schedule should be rationalized and front-loaded among smaller
states, then the larger states would either act to confirm and further
winnow the field or would reject and revitalize the field in later
weeks.
Those existing states that already have five or more seats (or the
larger number that have five or more electoral votes) should go to
P.R., in my opinion. No more district-drawing follies and
gerrymandering. Gerrymandering may be indeed one of the best
arguments in favor of P.R.!
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> A third party might well emerge in America if the two parties split
> far enough apart to make room for one in the center, where the most
> voters are. It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
> UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
> system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
> remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
> before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
> are generally tempered by realism in the process.
People are disenchanted with "moderates" or "centrists" who sell out
and only appeal to those in the Mushy Middle.
Temperance already is guaranteed by the Senate, whose members are
elected as individuals and thereby would tend to be in the center.
(This would be even more true with conversion to the approval vote for
such candidates, which is a superior method over the status quo.)
Dave Simpson
Phoenix Rising
>Phoenix Rising wrote:
>
>
>
>> A third party might well emerge in America if the two parties split
>>far enough apart to make room for one in the center, where the most
>>voters are. It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
>>UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
>>system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
>>remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
>>before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
>>are generally tempered by realism in the process.
>>
>>
>
> People are disenchanted with "moderates" or "centrists" who sell out
>and only appeal to those in the Mushy Middle.
>
I haven't noticed this; most of the laments I hear are from people
bitter about how far apart the parties have gone since 2000, providing
them with two equally bad choices and no one in the center that would
accurately represent them.
> Temperance already is guaranteed by the Senate, whose members are
>elected as individuals and thereby would tend to be in the center.
>(This would be even more true with conversion to the approval vote for
>such candidates, which is a superior method over the status quo.)
>
>
> Dave Simpson
>
>
Members of the House are elected as individuals as well, you know.
As to the approval vote, you're throwing that up as a red herring
after the discussion about PR; I would have nothing against switching to
an approval vote, particularly in the primaries, as long as
single-member plurality remained the final system to determine the
delegate to Washington.
I think a telling admission was your statement earlier, in another
post on this thread, that you would be OK with an eventual division of
North America north of the Rio Grande into 4-6 nations. I am not. (If
anything, I'd like to see an eventual economic and partial political
union of the US and Canada, and possibly even Mexico in the farther
distant future; however, I'm happy with the way things are now as long
as we don't divide.)
--Phoenix Rising
Dave Simpson
follow-up) failed, the problem with minority power is inherent in
arguments against a supermajority vote, and most of all with unanimity
and the power of the veto.
The "fringe" as opposed to "kingmaker" argument is overdone; a
threshold (minimum vote to get one seat) is how this problem is solved
(and lays to rest the common argument against P.R.). With five seats,
a useful threshold is 20%, which eliminates the 6% Splinter Party
example you provided.
The useful rule of thumb for a threshold is the fraction of the total
number of seats represented by one seat: Five seats, 20%; ten seats,
10%, and so on. A refinement is to define the threshold logically and
sensibly, corresponding to what amounts to a reasonable minimum
fraction that constitutes significance and thereby legitimacy. With a
small number of seats, 15% or one standard deviation from the mean is
useful; with a large number of seats, 2% or two standard deviations
from the mean is useful. Somewhere in the range (I often say it's
what people often consider to be a fraction to which they'd pay
attention in any context, around 10-20 per cent) is useful and
shouldn't be too difficult to select.
To use your 47-47-06 case, if five seats were up for grabs, either the
Splinter Party would be excluded, the Splinter Party might, but
probably not, be given the seat, or more likely, either a new election
be held for this one seat throughout the state, or (more probably,
realistically, and practically) it would be treated in the same was as
a vacancy that needed immediate filling for the fifth seat; obviously
the Dems and GOP would each have two seats apiece and the only
remaining issue would be what to do about seat number five.
What is it in Texas, 32 seats? The Splinter Party might get two
seats, and the majors fifteen each. That's hardly anything to be
worried about.
Aside from this is the reality that often even in the House, there is
little state allegiance, but instead party allegiance followed by
political or ideological desires. (That's an indictment of New
Deal-onward revolutionary socio-political reality concerning
federalism and the Constitution as well, but it's also the truth.)
Dave Simpson
Phoenix Rising
>Phoenix Rising wrote:
>
>
>
>> I think 435 is a good number. I could see going as high as 600 or
>>as low as 400, and I could also see going to a 151-seat Senate (three
>>per state plus one for DC) so there would be no split votes from states
>>and there would consistently be one Senate election per state every two
>>years. However, that's pure thought exercise; if it ain't broke, don't
>>fix it, IMHO.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it is broken now, and there are alternatives to P.R. that
>also merit consideration. The first area, of course, is to
>rationalize and correct the existing and attempted gerrymandering of
>the districts. Nobody can defend these incumbent-protecting,
>party-protecting misuse of the power to define the Congressional
>districts.
>
There, we can agree. However, people holding up PR as some kind of
consequence-free utopian solution truly scare me. Gerrymandering and
pork-barreling are problems. However, I think that blaming the system
instead of the people who run it is shifting attention to the wrong
things. The hypothesis that "fixing" the system would change the
character of the people doesn't ring true to me.
> Then you can change the vote for each Representative, and at the
>same time, the Senate, and actually all other single-member office
>elections, by going to the approval vote, which is the best way to
>select one individual.
>
I could live with this, as I said in an earlier post.
> Other than that, there's a radical alternative for the House of
>Representatives that is inarguably superior to the mess we have now,
>even if by going to this alternative we end up with a number of truly
>incompetent people in Washington: Random selection in place of
>election for the House -- a glorified draft or form of jury duty.
>People who dislike the lack of women or minorities in Congress now,
>but realize quotas are illegitimate, could only smile at the prospect
>of drawing citizens from random, in each district in the USA, to go to
>U.S. House of Representatives. (It might work out well in the state
>legislatures, too!)
>
> Yes, even random selection is better for the House than what we have
>now.
>
>
> Dave Simpson
>
>
Well, I disagree with you here, but it's certainly interesting to
think about. There is no way it would have legitimacy, however.
--Phoenix Rising
"It truly frightens me that the judicial system of the United States
rests on the shoulders of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get
out of jury duty."
Dan Listermann
news:23e7f86e.03072...@posting.google.com...
> People are disenchanted with "moderates" or "centrists" who sell out
> and only appeal to those in the Mushy Middle.
Typical "Black / White" or binary thinking patterns that are common among
conservatives. They are always trying to force extremes. I believe its
cause is a deep urge for simplification over accuracy while giving the
illusion of accuracy.
--
Phoenix Rising
wish I had your stamina.
You have accused me of poor academic practice and a jaundiced
worldview. I can only respond that I am confident my real-world
achievements give the lie to both claims, but it may well be jaundiced
from a pacifist-Green point of view, as my own positions as a Democratic
hawk are probably fairly close to opposites. I, too, do not like to
boast of academic credentials--but I assure you, for however, much worth
you believe my word to have, that I *do* have them. I was taking
graduate courses in international security as a sophomore. I am aware
of Gore Vidal's views and I reject them. I am aware of the PNAC, and of
their demonization by fanatical pacifists, and I support neither
completely, but after looking at the arguments of both sides, I come
down far closer to the position of the PNAC and make no apologies for it.
If the rest of the world gives us no reason to fight back, we'll go
home and stay there. If people want to kill us, we will follow the
Golden Rule, and make no apologies for being able to do it better,
quicker, and for longer. But now we're changing topics again.
Steve wrote:
>Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
>
>
>> You call my example of the Nazis a "canard" and then pull out
>>standard delusional parallels between America and the Third Reich.
>> Sorry, not going there.
>>
>>
>
>Then you miss the point. You seem to rule out a lot of relevant things
>because you don't like them.
>
>You can't be a very good academic if you do that. Seriously.
>
>Examine the US patriot Act I and proposed II - and compare the emergency
>powers that the allies forced the Germans to include in the Weimar Republic
>Constitution - in the hope of PREVENTING a Hitler.....except they actually
>enabled one.
>
As a member of the ACLU, I have no idea what you're talking about
when you accuse me of supporting the Patriot Act. I opposed their
passage in 2001 and I rejoice at seeing some of their powers pulled back
this past week in Congress. I also was pleased at the legislative (and
grassroots) backlash against the luddite Ashcroft when he said that the
Patriot Act powers need to be expanded--and did so at a hearing that
everyone except him seemed to know was an inquiry into the excessive use
of federal power under the first one.
[snip]
>Some Americans, like yourself, have an amazing propensity to stuff your
>heads down a hole when impleasant truths come knocking. It MUST be the
>years of propaganda and related conditioning.
>
Everyone seems to think that. You seem to think you know an awful
lot about me for someone who has talked to me for one day on the
Internet. Just once, I invite you to consider the possibility that I
*have* listened to the arguments from all sides, and have come down on
the side of my country because that is what I *want* to do, just as you
have come down where you have because that is where you *want* to be.
It may be a shock to your world to know that someone could support
America and at the same time be in full possession of their reason, but
I assure you I read a wide variety of media both in print and on the
Internet with an open mind, and I am a blind servant of no party or
ideology. (The fact that I support some of the goals of both the PNAC
and the ACLU should tell you that. There aren't many who fit that mold.
Believe me, I've looked.)
>>If we had known 9/11 was going to happen, it would have been a moot
>>point, and without that, there would not have been the two wars.
>> Afghanistan was well below the radar screen before that.
>>
>>
>
>Bush was planning to attack Afghanistan in October 2001 BEFORE 9/11
>happened. (Gore Videl "Dreaming War" - page 15)
>
[snip]
I hate to remind you of this, but 9/11 happened in September, 2001.
In addition, I have no reason to believe Vidal any more than any of the
other professionals who would flatly deny it. If he says what you want
to believe, and you use that as an excuse to believe it in spite of the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then that's your prerogative.
>> No one can agree with everyone. But thank you for your disparaging
>>remarks towards the center.
>>
>>
>
>You need to give weight to the word "or". "Or they are......"
>
>Precision in understanding will help you in your studies - otherwise you may
>misinterpret what others have said and that would not be good.
>
>You cannot credibly claim to be unaware of politicians who equivocate...and
>try to please everyone.
>
I am not talking about people who try to please everyone. I am
talking about people who take firm stands in between the dominant
ideologies of both parties, or at least in between their more extreme
elements. Cutting the tax cut back from upwards of $700bn to $350bn was
the work of an Republican Senator from Ohio, for example, and I applaud
that. There are others--Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman on the Democratic
side, John McCain on the Republican side, but there are too few. From
what I know of the Greens and Libertarians, however, allowing them
inroads into the legislature is the last way I'd think of fixing that
problem, however.
>> You claim it would "fix" America? I give you glasses. We're doing
>>a lot better than NZ. You just don't like what we're doing.
>>
>>
>[snip anti-Bush anti-American tirade that includes standard gauze disclaimer "I'm not anti-American ...]
>
"Be America what she will, for all her faults she is my country still."
--Phoenix Rising
S. R.
<< Interesting that the US Congress passes a bill to allow Americans to take
advantage of more enlightened health policies operated by the Canadian
government.
State-funded health care in Canada allows Canadian health providers to sit
dwon with drgu companies - as single buyers - and get GOOD prices for
drugs. >>
Actually the US passed a bill that will allow Americans to take advantage of
the Canadian system which allows Canadians to buy drugs without the research
and overhead premiums that are shifted to Americans. This will ultimately
reduce the pharmacy companies ability to shift expenses from overseas
shipped drugs to Americans. This will lead the pharmacies to raise the
prices they negotiate with Canadian firms and other countries. Also we
provide Billions of dollars in reduced and free medicine to third world
countries; that will be reduced or eliminated. This will lead to more
disease, famine (as less able bodied men to till the land) and need for
humanitarian aide.
On a slight tangent; I recently took a trip to Ontario (going to see the
falls) and got lost so decided to just keep driving for a while. During my
trip, I passed two emergency rooms and both were closed. Large signs gave a
phone number and message that in emergency call the number and locations of
other emergency treatment areas. I didn't give it much attention then but
recently there was a newspaper story that the city wanted to close a
hospital's emergency department. There was three emergency departments in a
2 square mile area and would increase transport time by less than a minute
average. The community was up in arms and ultimately the emergency
department stayed open. The COBRA law dictates all kind of requirements for
hospitals that provide emergency care and that required this hospital to
keep up with all kinds of financially irresponsible care. The same has
happened with several Fire stations. The Fire chief has said that almost 9
or so fire houses could be closed without any loss of safety. Community
uprising and court orders has keep many open or delayed many closings. I
believe I read about similar occurrences in Canada also, but not certain.
Steve
> The theory and reasoning are all in favor of increasing the size of
> the House. The problems that already exist that would be made worse
> are not denied, but rather than give up, one must be willing to work
> at this, such as to limit expenditures by the offices of the Members
> of Congress, or even to the size of their official staffs.
Think of it this way. The members of Congress - and the President - are the
ONLY people who are directly accountable to voters nationally.
If corporations or other organisations abuse their wealth or power, it is
the politicians who will rein them in.
So does it make sense to knobble YOUR representatives and potentially reduce
your OWN power and influence by restricting their numbers and limiting
their resources?
No.
People who do not like democracy have conned people into thinking their
politicians are the enemy. Yet the people spreading the poisonous message
are in no way accountable to voters and citizens - whereas the politicians
are.
What is the cost of Congress - Senate and House? What proportion of the
total US budget is that?
Probably a tiny pittance.
The US Defence budget is $300B / year. I'd be surprised if the total
congressional budget was more than $1B / year.
That is your democracy you're talking about. These people are your ONLY true
allies.....and you get to choose who they are.
If you do democracy on the cheap, you are only limiting your OWN power.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
>> There are several reasons why more might be good.
>>
>> 1. You might actually be able to get access to your rep if s/he is only
>> servicing 100,000 people instead of 500,000 people.
>> 2. If a rep only have to please 100,000 people they won't need the same
>> vast sums required to campaign for 500,000.
>
> Note something about P.R.: proponents point out (and upon
> reflection, it makes good sense practically) that with P.R., the idea
> isn't necessarily to get all the seats, or (correspondingly) as much
> of the vote as possible, but only that fraction that a party wants --
> or believes it realistically can get. (In practice, it of course
> would try for more, and ideally as much as it could get.)
There are some absolute limits that need to be recognised.
- How many hours in a day.
- How many days in a month.
- How many months in a term.
How many reps do you need so that you can effectively represent your people
within those temporal limits?
With 300m people, the US Congress has to work out how to 'scale' up to be
both effectively democratic and representative.
>> With 2,175 reps....perhaps in 10 political parties elected via
>> proportional representation, they would certainly be small individually -
>> yet with 300 million people, perhaps that is a GOOD thing. No small group
>> can dictate to the legislature like that. Speakers would represent entire
>> caucuses....and perhaps significant faciotns within a caucus. Each party
>> would have speaking time - and decide themselves how best to use it.
>>
>> Maybe those 2,175 reps would be able to spend more time in their
>> districts actively working with their voters - and being the link to the
>> federal government - accessible and connected.
>
> A House of Representatives over 2,000 members would be a dead issue.
I would not give up so easily as you do. Two thousand reps is hardly any in
a nation of almost 300,000,000 people.
> It would be impossibly expensive and very impractical.
The cost would be trivial compared to the total budget. The cost would be
trivial compared to just the defence portion of the total budget.
Practicality is an issue. The conduct of debates would require good
management and some discipline. Remember this is a representative body and
not an executive body.
I have attended conferecnes with up to 5,000 people in attendance. These
work well if well organised. Information is circulated. Debates on the
floor do work - provided you accpet that once someone has made a point, you
do not have 50 more people repeat it. Votes are taken. Decisions made.
There would also be many willing hands for committee work and hearings - not
to mention campaigning.
> What I have
> tried to point out is that to desire a somewhat, and yes,
> significantly, enlarged House is not the same as the straw-man level
> that you bring up here (even if that wasn't your intention).
There was nothing straw man about it. Compare the cost of Congress to most
other items in the US annual budget and you'll probably see that even if it
trebled in cost - it would still be cheap.
> In realistic terms we're looking about anywhere from 450-650
> members. It is my guess that people will balk at 700, certainly at
> 1,000, and I believe 1,000 members just won't cut it.
Why? I mean in practical terms - not just perceptions.
> Not that this
> is the defining criterion, but a real-world additional note is to
> desire to keep the size of current facilities pretty much the same as
> they are now, and to trade off more members as much as possible for
> reduced staff, forcing bloated staff to be shrunk to make room for
> official, as opposed to unoffical, members of government. (Cut their
> staffs in half, I say, as a Scrooge that supports an enlarged House of
> Representatives.)
If each member had smaller districts / Congressional responsibilities, they
might not need as many staff. Today they have large staff because they are
so few and the nation so populous.
Steve
> Yes, even random selection is better for the House than what we have
> now.
If there was no television numbing the minds of millions, I would agree.
But as there is television effectively limiting the knowledge and potential
of almost half of all citizens (based on hours / day before the tube), I
would not want random selection.
You can watch The Price is Right on TV if I want....You don't need it in
Congress, too.
Steve
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
>> You continue to assume that minor parties = bad, despite all eevidence to
>> the contrary in 88 democracies that have politically diverse
>> legislatures.
>
> Truly negligeable parties can be bad. Even with the less-small of
> smaller parties, it can be bad if they have undue weight in a
> governing body, which is what's more serious a concern than
> "instability" or squabbling.
This idea of "undue weight" is a fallacy heard in countries that don't have
PR....and from people who haven't effectively made the mental translation
to a different system with different operating dynamics.
If you have 2 seats out of 300.....you have no influence at all *unless* an
issue pivots on your two votes. But how can it pivot on your two votes
*unless* there are 149 others also agree with you?
2 reps can't outvote 298 no matter how slice it. "Undue weight" is a
demonstration of misapprehension and failed understanding.....and is not a
valid criticism of PR.
> Getting rid of the negligeable-party problem, of course, is easy, by
> using a fair, reasonable threshold (minimum fraction of vote to get at
> least one seat).
Yes...thresholds do limit elected parties to ones deemed to be electorally
significant. Around 4% seems to be the averge. In the US, that would mean
winning roughly 4 million votes - assuming 100 million turnout. if 50
million vote, then it would be 2 million people. Either way, it is both a
lot of people inabsolute terms and a significant proportion of votes cast
in relative terms.
> The threshold, to be fair, must range somewhere between the size
> beyond which nobody can deny there is significance ....
Sure.
> Normally in my experience the upper limit is between ten and twenty
> per cent, and the lower limit is around one to two per cent.
> Statistically speaking, it is looking at things in terms of one and
> two standard deviations from the mean at one end (tail).
No problem. I'd think a threshold toward 2% was better than 20%. The higher
the threshold, the fewer parties there are and the greater likelihood there
may well be only 3 parties elected - and one will then certainly hold the
balance of power. A lower threshold provides many more tails for the dog to
select when looking to wag one....rather than only one tail wagging the dog
with a high threshold.
> The actual size of the threshold ought to correspond sensibly to the
> total number of seats, the size of the political body. A good
> starting point for determining the threshold is to set it to the
> fraction corresponding to the value of one seat divided by the total
> number. (Five seats, 20%; Ten seats, 10%, 100 seats, 1%) The number
> can be revised based on other criteria and real-world observations.
> (In a truly large body, having only one seat total makes no sense, so
> we look elsewhere, such as the 1-2%, two-standard-deviations idea I
> mentioned earlier, for the minimum.)
Agreed.
> As far as number of parties, it always will be an imprecise
> representation of all political views among the electorate, but
> obviously, the more the number, the more precise the representation
> is, and the less the number of parties, the less precise all political
> views are represented. This nobody can deny. It is ridiculous on its
> face to state that our two-major-party system implies it is an
> accurate representation of our political views, and that generally we
> are one or another type. Nobody would dare be that simplistic in
> claiming to be accurately describing our society! As a practical
> issue there is "leeway" in party choice, seeking a "best-fit" choice,
> but this only serves also to confirm the lack of precision with fewer
> political parties that I mentioned above.
Agreed.
Steve
> Well, you certainly don't tire of talking about this; I can only
> wish I had your stamina.
>
> You have accused me of poor academic practice and a jaundiced
> worldview.
I've observed you have demonstrated a propensity to dismiss ideas you don't
like rather than test them and address them.
Being familiar with good academic practice, that doesn't look like good
academic practice to me.
You set yourself up as the student....and nominated US PolSci as the 10 best
in the world (in US eyes, I'm sure).
I've faithfully countered each issue you raised with either real-world
experience or references to verifiable historical events.
You have dismissed them more or less out of hand. That doesn't resonate with
good academic practice, either.
.........
> If the rest of the world gives us no reason to fight back, we'll go
> home and stay there. If people want to kill us, we will follow the
> Golden Rule, and make no apologies for being able to do it better,
> quicker, and for longer. But now we're changing topics again.
What goes around, come around...and America only controls its point on the
loop.
Be careful what you send around....It will come back.
The US has been storing up 9/11 'air-miles' for decades.
You think more violence will fix it?
Look at Northern Ireland and Palestine for conclusive proof that it will
not.
Americans are 4% of the global population. Worth bearing in mind.
--
Steve
Steve
> Actually the US passed a bill that will allow Americans to take advantage
> of the Canadian system which allows Canadians to buy drugs without the
> research and overhead premiums that are shifted to Americans.
I know this is not true because drug companies charge their international
subsidiaries an R&D "royalty" that is counted as a cost - and thus reduces
profit - and tax paid in the non-HQ country.
So these 'royalties' amount to a profit transfer to head office and a
tax-credit overseas.
Nice try, though.
--
Steve
Dave Simpson
(* sigh *)
[S.F. Chronicle, one of many who reported the first step]
House OKs buying of imported drugs
Bush administration, Senate GOP oppose cost-saving measure
Washington -- The House, prodded by seniors' complaints about soaring
costs for prescription drugs, approved a measure Friday to allow U.S
consumers access to lower-cost drugs from Canada and other countries.
The measure faces substantial hurdles before becoming law, however.
Both the Bush administration and Senate Republicans are opposed and
are expected to water down the House measure later this summer.
Despite an aggressive lobbying campaign by the pharmaceutical industry
to defeat the House measure, the bill was passed more emphatically
than expected, 243-186. Nearly three dozen Republicans backed it,
defying GOP leaders and a warning from the Bush administration that
the bill could lead to the importation of unsafe or counterfeit drugs.
The Senate passed a narrower version of the legislation in June as an
amendment to a Medicare bill, allowing imports of drugs from Canada
for one year on a trial basis. Supporters of the House measure now
fear opponents will try to weaken or kill their stronger legislation
when lawmakers meet to reconcile the two bills.
The House bill would require the Food and Drug Administration to
develop a plan to allow consumers, pharmacists and wholesalers to
import drugs that have been approved by the FDA and made at
FDA-certified plants in 25 industrialized countries. The countries
include Canada, all the European Union nations, Australia, New
Zealand, Israel and South Africa, but not Mexico.
Americans, especially seniors, have for years crossed the border into
Canada or Mexico to buy brand-name drugs at cut-rate prices. Congress
has previously approved bills to allow imports of drugs from certain
countries, but both the Clinton and Bush administrations blocked the
effort by refusing to certify the drugs as safe.
S.F. SENIOR PLEASED
The efforts by legislators to open the borders is welcome news to
Sally Green of San Francisco, a 75-year-old retired adult-school
teacher who just placed her first drug order with a Canadian pharmacy
through its toll-free number.
"This would open the door for some savings for people who don't have
complete coverage through their health plans," said Green, who has
prescription drug coverage through her Medicare health maintenance
organization, or HMO, but with a cap of $1,000 a year. She went over
the limit after just six months.
Importing prescription medicines that are available in this country is
technically illegal, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
said it will not prosecute individuals who are buying the drugs for
personal use.
Green is waiting for the delivery of her medication, for which she
would have had to pay $389 for a three-month supply in this country
but that cost her just $199 through the Canadian pharmacy.
Prescription drugs are 30 percent to 80 percent cheaper in Canada than
in the United States because the government controls the prices.
Supporters of the House measure said the imports could pressure drug
companies to lower their prices, potentially saving U.S. consumers
hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Americans are
expected to spend $1.8 trillion on prescriptions over the next 10
years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"For too long, price gouging of our seniors has gone on, subsidizing
the discounts that the French, Germans, English and Canadians enjoy,"
said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a sponsor of the measure.
BUSH TEAM SEES DANGERS
The Bush administration has dubbed the drug reimportation bill
"dangerous legislation." FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan warned in a
letter to Congress this week that his agency does not have the
resources to check whether the drugs produced abroad are safe or
effective.
"Many prescription drugs obtained from foreign sources that either
purport to be or appear to be the same as FDA-approved medications
are, in fact, of unknown quality," McClellan said. He added that the
drugs may not have been stored properly and may have labels in foreign
languages that could confuse consumers.
However, supporters of the bill insist drugs can be imported safely as
long as the FDA is given the resources to set up a system to inspect
and certify foreign plants.
Steve Gray, a pharmacist and attorney from Chino Hills (San Bernardino
County) who works on regulatory issues, doesn't think it should be up
to the individual or even the drugstore pharmacist to make sure the
supply is safe.
He said importers -- wholesalers or other entities such as hospitals
and pharmacy chains -- should be licensed by the FDA to import drugs,
just as manufacturers currently are. "I don't think the average,
individual pharmacist can set up a safe enough process to bring those
drugs in," he said.
Some pharmacists disagree and are already poised to import.
PHARMACIST WELCOMES BILL
"Whatever I can do to help save prescription costs for my customers, I
will do," said Stephen Rosati, a pharmacist at Penny Wise Drug in
Hollister (San Benito County). Rosati said he's already talked to his
wholesaler to make sure the systems and safety measures are in place
for him to buy drugs from outside the United States.
"I'm really happy our leaders haven't caved in to all the pressure
from the drug industry," said Rosati, who dismissed the pharmaceutical
industry's claims that reimportation will open the doors to
counterfeit drugs.
"I hate to say it, but the counterfeit market has been there for a
long time," he said. "I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but the
system now is not perfect. It's up to us to make sure it's as safe a
supply as possible."
Drug companies, who could lose billions in revenue if the bill takes
effect,
have mounted a sweeping campaign against it that includes airing radio
ads and deploying hundreds of lobbyists on Capitol Hill to try to sway
wavering members.
The measure's proponents allege drug companies are orchestrating
efforts by outside groups to attack the bill. According to a
Washington Post report this week, a top official at the industry's
trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
known as PhRMA, drafted a memo that the conservative Christian
Traditional Values Coalition sent to pro-life lawmakers, warning that
the legislation could allow consumers easy access to the abortion drug
RU-486.
Phoenix Rising
>Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
>
>
>> Well, you certainly don't tire of talking about this; I can only
>>wish I had your stamina.
>>
>> You have accused me of poor academic practice and a jaundiced
>>worldview.
>>
>>
>
>I've observed you have demonstrated a propensity to dismiss ideas you don't
>like rather than test them and address them.
>
>Being familiar with good academic practice, that doesn't look like good
>academic practice to me.
>
I've dismissed ideas that wouldn't work, and I've given more than
sufficient consideration to each of your arguments. In addition, this
is a newsgroup. You also seem apt to dismiss ideas you don't like,
believe that repeating your points again and again gives them additional
validity, and have tried to change the subject from PR to American
interventionism and other unrelated things instead of answering my
points. Don't talk to me about sound academic practice. If mine were
really so bad, there is no way I would be where I am today.
>You set yourself up as the student....and nominated US PolSci as the 10 best
>in the world (in US eyes, I'm sure).
>
You've certainly done nothing to set yourself up as the expert. And
the ranking of the top 10 poli-sci programs in the world was done at the
University of Cambridge, England. Oxford was #11, Cambridge #13. The
top 10, as well as #12, were all American.
>I've faithfully countered each issue you raised with either real-world
>experience or references to verifiable historical events.
>
In your eyes, I'm sure.
--PR
Dave Simpson
> Think of it this way. The members of Congress - and the President - are the
> ONLY people who are directly accountable to voters nationally.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here are the facts:
Representatives and Senators are accountable to voters directly,
making it also nationally. (That it is direct is what makes it also
national rather than federal, which normally is indirect, through the
individual states.)
The President and Vice President are not directly accountable.
These officials are not directly elected. Given the hugely ignorant
and vulgar vote for Gore in 2000, you aren't the only one, but you are
in need of learning about our Electoral College.
[other mistakes deleted]
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> However, people holding up PR as some kind of consequence-free utopian
> solution truly scare me.
It doesn't scare me, because such people aren't taken seriously.
The clever schemers might get away with stuff from time to time, but
rarely are the starry-eyed dupes taken seriously.
I have been trying to engage in correcting many examples of
dupishness myself in the form of other people's P.R.-supporting
statements.
As far as the gerrymandering problem, the first thing to look at is
simply to re-draw the districts much more fairly, rationally,
sensibly, even using a bi-partisan commission (like with military base
closings). Combine ZIP codes or U.S. census districts that are
contiguous and try (to make the shapes the most plain and fair) to
minimize the periphery length of each district. (As few side as
possible to each polygon, in normal words, just draw plain, basic
districts.)
Then for the Reps and all single-person offices, go to the approval
vote.
Dave Simpson
The Frog
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in
>news:ib25ivo9jt9a6clov...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:07:24 GMT, Mitchell Holman
>> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in
>>>news:f6q2ivg3mgcda9ooa...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Texas is overwhelminly Republican.
>>>>
>>>> Republicans:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Carry Texas in every recent presidential eleciton.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Routinely win both U.S. Sentate seats
>>>>
>>>> 2) Hold EVERY statewide office.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Hold a majority in the Texas House.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Hold a majority in the Texas Sentat.
>>>>
>>>> 5) More Texans registered as Republicans
>>>
>>>
>>> If Texas is so Republican, then why can't
>>>Republicans win more Congressional seats?
>>
>> The COURTS drew the lines for race prefernce. They wished to insure
>> minoritiy wins.
>
>
> And the GOP wants to draw lines to make
>sure that the GOP wins. They have admitted
>it. They don't want fair elections - they
>want GOP victories. And they will keep
>redrawing the lines until they get them.
>
If I had my choice between the representatives of the people and the
courts, I would choose the people every time.
You apparantly don't think the poeple's voice is that important when
it is not convenient for your party.
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Phoenix Rising
>[snip]
>
> As far as the gerrymandering problem, the first thing to look at is
>simply to re-draw the districts much more fairly, rationally,
>sensibly, even using a bi-partisan commission (like with military base
>closings). Combine ZIP codes or U.S. census districts that are
>contiguous and try (to make the shapes the most plain and fair) to
>minimize the periphery length of each district. (As few side as
>possible to each polygon, in normal words, just draw plain, basic
>districts.)
> Dave Simpson
>
>
Now *that* I would support wholeheartedly, though it would still get
muddy at least every ten years, as redistricting needs to happen then to
reflect the general loss of representatives by the Northeast towards the
South and Southwest. No one said any human system would ever be
perfect, though.
--Phoenix Rising
Steve
Steve said:
>>I've faithfully countered each issue you raised with either real-world
>>experience or references to verifiable historical events.
>
> In your eyes, I'm sure.
In anyone's eyes. You've been an arrogant pratt.
I live in a PR country - I tell you how it actually works in practice.
You dismiss all that real world experience and observations from someone who
has avtively partricipated in it, and instead continue to maintain a
characterisation of PR systems utterly unknown here - where we actually USE
the system.
Surely you can undertsand how I would see you to be a complete idiot.....as
only an idiot could deny the experience of someone else in an area in which
you clearly (to me) have no personal experience.
That's dumb in anyone's book......but looking at what is going on in Iraq
right now, you certainly aren't alone in the US in clinging resolutely to
invalid assumptions despite evidence to the contrary.
They, like you, refuse to accept the obvious....
...and it doesn't matter.
PR still works just fine here in New Zealand - whatever you think of it. The
bogeyman you conjure up are no where to be seen.
--
Steve
Steve
> "For too long, price gouging of our seniors has gone on, subsidizing
> the discounts that the French, Germans, English and Canadians enjoy,"
> said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a sponsor of the measure.
This is bullshit.
The drug companies charge what they can get way with.
The American system lets them rape the wallets of the ill - with the support
of bought and paid for politiians.
Sadly typical that other countries with better systems for providing
cost-effective drugs are scape-goated by American politicians for the
failings of the American system which they have allowed to come into being!
--
Steve
tom_terrific
were still in power?
Tom
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message news:<sWoUa.7398$9f7.8...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
> > volantus4 wrote:
> >
> >>Proportional representation at both the state and Federal level in the
> >>House of Representatives while the Senate of both remain winner take
> >>all is appropriate in my opinion. The current "winner take all" form
> >>of electoral representation promulgates corruption with cabals of
> >>influential and/or criminal and/or corrupt and/or wealthy individuals
> >>able to gain control of the party apparatus thus dictating party
> >>policy to their own unjust means and ends. Proportional representation
> >>would make governments more competitive ( and thus more honest and
> >>open),
> >
> > What is your basis for this claim?
>
> I'll back him up. I live in a country that uses proprortional representation
> and what he says is true.
>
> He would have been better to say that PR makes 'parties' more competitive.
> This is becasue in a PR system, if your Parliament or legislature has
> several / many parties in it, that means your vote can be used to back any
> of them - and probably result in seats.
>
> So the "broad church" parties of the Democrats and Republicans will do two
> things:
>
> 1. Break up. They only exists as they are because the system offers no other
> choice.
>
> 2. Compete actively with a more clear and refined message - for votes.
>
> >>more responsive to the just interests of the electorate, and
> >>promulgate the running for political office of individuals of a much
> >>higher quality and integrity than under the current system because of
> >>the aforementioned reasons.
> >
> > What aforementioned reasons?
>
> This is more a failure on your part to understand than it is a failure on
> his part to explain himself.
>
> If parties become more numberous - and there is genuine ideological
> competition between them - then they will have MUCH reduced capacity for
> carrying the dead-weight time-serving freeloaders who infest the democrats
> and republicans today.
>
> under PR, over time, non-performers are shown the door....as voters won't
> vote for non-performers...They are a liability and can reduce the share of
> the vote for their party....thus reducing their representation.
>
> Again - this is BECAUSE in a PR system voters don't have just two,
> take-it-or-leave-it, choices. They have many more choices - and they know
> their vote will count toward representation - and not be wasted because
> their guy didn't win in winner take all.
>
> >>It is likely that the individuals elected through "proportional
> >>representation" in "minor parties" will be of a higher calibure than the
> >>larger parties because they will represent reform and be much less subject
> >>to corruption than politicians of the larger political parties. I
> >>understand that the Canadian Province of Quebec is going to change to the
> >>proportional political representation model in it's next election and that
> >>the whole of Canada is likely to follow. I believe that the USA should
> >>follow Canada's example. I live in Dallas, Texas.
> >
> > Fundamentalist parties generally draw votes on claims of being "less
> > corrupt." It was how the Nazis got started as well.
>
> The Nazi cannard. Excellent. There are 88 countries using proportional
> representation today.....and not a Nazi party in any of them.
>
> Germany was a monarchy until WW I. It was not a democracy. In the 20's it
> suffered hyper-inflation and was stricken with apalling poverty. The heavy
> burden of reparations imposed by the Allies after WW I left them bankrupt.
> Then we had the world depression.
>
> Hitler offered hope and jobs - and to abrogate the payment of reparations.
> He was a populist, nationalist leader. His message was a most welcome one.
> In 1933.
>
> Who knew that he would seize power by force?
>
> Germans were desperate. But even than, Hitler never got more than 40% of the
> vote in any election. in a PR system, that kept him from governing alone.
> he had to seize power at the point of a gun - using emergency legislation
> not much different to the US Patriot Act and its proposed successor.
>
> Had Germany had winner take all, Hitler may well have won an outright
> majority in the German legislature with his 40%.
>
> How?
>
> In Canada, the present Liberal government holds 57% of the seats with 40.2%
> of the vote.....thanks to winner take all.
>
> Look at President Bush. If people knew when they (almost) elected him that
> he would lead the country into 2 wars.....they would not have voted for
> him.
>
> Hitler seized power by force or he would eventually have lost power through
> the ballot box.
>
> > Generally, the highest-caliber candidates are those found at the
> > center, because they're the ones who can balance opposing poles and
> > still have a sense of self-identity.
>
> Or they are gormless crawlers who agree with everyone.....
>
> > They're also best at relating to
> > the widest swath of the American electorate. However, PR systems tend
> > not to foster the development of centrist parties; they foster the
> > development of extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based ones.
>
> This is an utterly fatuous statement. You've made it up.
>
> If what you are saying is true, then at this very moment 88 countries are
> being governed by "extreme, single-interest, or ethnically-based" minor
> parties.
>
> Let me save you some time. They aren't.
>
> PR *better* allows voters to see who the REAL centrists are - and vote for
> them.
>
> The Democrats and Republicans today conceal among their ranks almost every
> political flavour that would - if it could - break free and be a distinct
> political package in tis own right - and you could vote for it.
>
> People in Tennesse might want to vote for a Pelosi - but their local
> democrat acts more like a Republican.....such is winner take all.
>
> If you want to vote for a broad, centrist party (and under PR systems most
> voters do) then you certainly can.
>
> The reality - quite seprate and distinct from your fanciful statement above
> - is that in EVERY country with PR today, the governing group is composed
> of parties of the Centre. That is becasue parties of the centre win the
> greatest share of the vote.
>
> > A third party might well emerge in America if the two parties split
> > far enough apart to make room for one in the center, where the most
> > voters are.
>
> ????
>
> > It would admittedly be difficult, but not unprecedened; the
> > UK is basically a three-party system with a single-member plurality
> > system. However, the two-party system ensures that extreme-wing parties
> > remain crowded out and are forced to align with more mainstream parties
> > before they can actually enter the halls of power, and their ideologies
> > are generally tempered by realism in the process.
>
> The UK Parliament has about 7 parties in it - as does the Canadian
> Parliament. Why? Becasue anyone can get his name on the ballot for about
> $300 or $1000 dollars - depending on what country you refer to.
>
> In the US, many states require thousands of signatures on a petition in
> order to even be on the ballot if you aren't a Democrat or Republican.
>
> Just another corrupt method used to restrict democracy and reduce voter
> choice.
>
> Judging from your various posts, restricted democracy and reduced choice are
> your primary concerns.
>
> Butlook what it is doing to America! You fear PR....but LOOK!!!
>
> Look at what is already happening.
>
> PR would fix most of it. All America really needs is MORE democracy - not
> less.
>
> I live in acountry that uses PR and the claims you make are not born out by
> real-world experience.
John Willimans
"The Frog" <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:si39ivov8vvjrah93...@4ax.com...
The democratic process called for the judges to intervene in the
case of a deadlock which is exactly what happened. Who appoints the judges?
The elected officials and voters do. So no, no problem with the democratic
or representative process. Only standard checks and balances.
Dave Simpson
> My question is, would this even be a topic of discussion if Democrats
> were still in power?
No. Normally with P.R. it is those whose ideas have failed in the
so-called "marketplace of ideas" who seek P.R., as well as mainly the
starry-eyed dupes and others enamored of anything associated with the
more smiley-faced, touchy-feely, part of left-wing politics.
However, there are others such as I who also support P.R. where it
is appropriate, and in such instances it would be better than what we
have now.
At the very least, P.R. for all of Texas's seats in the House of
Representatives (and in Texas's legislature) would be a practical
improvement inasmuch as it would end the gerrymandering associated
with districts, by eliminating the districts and treating the entire
state as a single district.
As I've noted, there are other real-world solutions, too, such as
drawing the districts rationally and more fairly rather than by
gerrymandering, but this is trumped by a real-world fact of life that
such district drawing is subject to political manipulation.
Ideally if we kept districts they would be rationally and fairly
drawn (corresponding to something such as contiguous groups of ZIP
codes or U.S. Census districts, for example), and election of each
individual representative would be by the approval vote.
P.R. here is a good alternative, however.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
neglecting them, but looking first at any replies you've made to me
before turning to the replies you have made to others, or what you
have initiated.
Dave Simpson
Douglas Otis
In the US, Federal and State houses would be a likely place to
introduce proportional representation. Introducing a broader range of
views into a debate forms the basis of representation. With more
parties, this should tend to reduce party-line voting as coalitions
become required. This should also provide more reasoned laws for
evolutionary change.
How would you see introducing this concept into the US system?
Constitutional amendments would be a required step in this process.
Doug
Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message news:<AotUa.7439$9f7.8...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >>Phoenix Rising allegedly said:
> >>
> >>>Dave Simpson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Any state with at least five House seats immediately is a good
> >>>>candidate for proportional representation. Never mind the
> >>>>gerrymandering and the court fights that would be needed instead to
> >>>>impose more rational districts, which would be contiguous,
> >>>>simply-shaped, and correspond not only socio-economically or otherwise
> >>>>but also to other existing political-and-utilitarian units that are
> >>>>there for the correspondence, so to speak, such as contiguous postal
> >>>>ZIP code areas, or Congressional census districts.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just have a party list vote and apportion the seats according to the
> >>>>vote.
> >>>>[snip] Dave Simpson
> >>>>
> >>> Would that it were so simple.
> >>
> >>.....the good news is that it is that simple. I live in a country with
> >>proportional representation....and your list of bogus complaints below are
> >>just that - bogus. They are rooted in a contempt for democracy that you
> >>may not even be aware you are exhibiting.
> >
> > Nice try, but I'm not convinced. Particularly when you say that I
> > harbor a "contempt for democracy"
>
> You want to use the voting system to exclude from representation viewpoints
> you consider objectionable. That, to me, says you are happy to deprive
> others of the representation they might choose for themselves.
>
> By what right do you do that? Seriously.
>
> > when I prefer single-member plurality,
> > which any political scientist worth their weight will tell you *is* a
> > viable and indeed far more stable form of democracy than PR.
>
> The evidence doesn't support your claim. There are - today - 88 countries
> that use various systems of proportional representation. They include
> every country in Europe other than the UK and France. France goes to PR
> when the Sociliasts are in power....and then goes back to a two-round
> majoritarian system when the Conservatives win power.
>
> The EU Parliament is proportional.
>
> New Zealand is proportional. The Australian Senate is proportional. South
> Africa is proportional. Tabo Mbeke seems to be doing just fine.
>
> I once compared Germany to New Zealand.
>
> Between 1945 and 1985, Germany had had something like 4 changes of
> government.
>
> In the same period, New Zealand, under winner take all, had had 5.
>
> The same study showed that in the proportional country, relatively small
> shifts of voter support lead to small shifts in party representation - and
> evolutionary policy change.
>
> In New Zealand, going from Labour (left) to National (right) was more akin
> to revolution as each change in government saw the incoming government
> scrap large chunks of law passed by the previous goverment - in favour of
> new laws in line with the ideology of the new government.
>
> So what IS stability? Have less frequent elections - but radical shifts in
> policy? Or is in having slightly more elections - but more stable policy
> over time?
>
> Besides....in countries with PR it is rare that eelctions are any more
> frequent than in countries with winner take all.
>
> PR is used in ovr 80% of the world's democracies. Yet you can name only
> Israel and Italy as ready examples of "instability".....ignoring the policy
> continuity in both over time...and the *obvious* strength of the Israeli
> democracy despite what you see as a system that shuold lead to instability.
>
> >>>PR systems allow for fringe parties to emerge and sometimes come to
> >>>dominate national politics as coalition-makers or -breakers.
> >>
> >>What is really happening is that voters vote for people and parties they
> >>like. These people and parties are elected to represent these voters. So
> >>far, so good.
> >>
> >>They all go to the legislature and debate the important matters of the day
> >>- and pass laws that reflect the consensus they have been able to reach.
> >>
> >>That is democracy. We probably agree on that much.
> >
> > Yes, we do that in single-member plurality systems, too.
>
> No. You don't. Vast numbers of voters are not able to elect anyone at all.
>
> A Republican voter in a district that elects Democrats has a worthless vote.
> A Democrat voter in a district that elects Republicans has a worthless vote.
> A voter for any OTHER party has a worthless vote no matter where they live.
>
> In all these cases, their votes elect no one.
>
> In a PR system, ALL their votes count toward representation for the party
> (or person - in STV, say) they support.
>
> That is a HUGE difference. It's certainly a reason to get out and vote -
> becasue your vote ALWAYS counts. In New Zealand, voter turn-out is around
> 80%.....compared to the 45% seen in the US - and that is for presidential
> years. Mid-term turnouts are even lower.
>
> Why vote when your vote is worth nothing? So Americans don't vote.
>
> Add to this the profound gerrymandering of district boundaries and the
> picture becomes dire.
>
> In 2002 over 99% (!!!) of Congressional incumbents were re-elected.
> Specifically - 427 of 431 who stood again.
>
> That isn't a democracy. It's a farce. Thanks to boundary corruption.
>
> >>A feature of democracy is that you don't win a vote unless you have a
> >>majority. Proportional representation often results in no single party
> >>having a majority....becasue the seats won reflects precisely the share of
> >>the vote each party won.
> >>
> >>Your suggestion that "fringe" parties "dominate" is a perversion of
> >>reality.
> >
> > Actually, it's a completely accurate observation of reality.
>
> I live in a country with PR - see it firsthand every day - and I'm telling
> you it's not an accurate version of reality.
>
> I live it. I don't see here what you claim is inevitable.
>
> Please - you have 88 countries to choose from. Tell me which ones are
> dominated by minor parties.
>
> >>What you are really saying is that your minority party is unable to
> >>unilaterally impose your agenda on the nation because other parties will
> >>not back you and allow you to have a majority. They disagree with you.
> >
> > "Unilaterally?!" If you have a majority, then what you're doing is
> > not likely unilateral.
>
> You missed the point....In a PR system, only rarely does one party get more
> than 50% of the vote and win most seats. So you probably won't have a
> majority.....
>
> Same question: if you don't have a majority - because voters didn't give you
> one - you can't claim anyone else is holding you to ransom or "dominating".
>
> What you DO have is a collection of minorities - some large and some small -
> who must represent the policies and values of their respective voters - and
> govern the country.
>
> In practice it works very well....as the 88 countries who use PR every day
> clearly demonstrate.
>
> >>The ONLY reason a small party can have the "balance of power" is because
> >>the legislature is *already* divided on a proposed measure. Simple math
> >>makes this obvious. In a simple legislature with 100 members - broken up
> >>into 3 parties - 45/45/10 - there can be no majority unless at least 51
> >>members agree.
> >>
> >>Now....if 45 think one thing and the other 45 disagree.....does that mean
> >>the 10 who must decide one way or the other are "dominating"? You're
> >>overlooking the role of the OTHER 45 who ALSO disagree. Together - they
> >>are a majority.
> >>
> >>Without one group or other of 45, the '3rd-party' would have no power at
> >>all. They are outnumbered 90 to 10 if the two larger groups agree.
> >>
> >>You're really just moaning about the correct and proper operation of
> >>democracy.
> >>
> >>Get over it.
> >
> > ROFL Who sells you this stuff? I'm starting to understand why the
> > top 10 political science programs in the world are all American.
>
> I'm telling you how it actually works. You can refuse to believe it if you
> like - but you are passing up first hand experience in doing so.
>
> Do your math. There is NO WAY 10 members in a 100 member house can
> "dominate" UNLESS they have common cause with enough OTHER members to form
> a majority. If they are part of a majority, then that is democracy
> functioning as designed - even if it is inconvenient for the government
> concerned for that particular measure. Ok..so they lose a vote...and
> everyone moves on to the next agenda item.
>
> Please explain how 10 people could out-vote the other 90...and "dominate"
> then.
>
> I said outright that people in two-party environments find this very
> mentally challenging because it is a view of the world they find utterly
> foreign. yet this view is the dominant one among the world's democracies.
>
> Winner take all is used in perhaps 12 countries, while PR is used in 88.
> Nextim you look at an OECD table of relativewaelth and well-being among the
> top 24 countries, remeber that all but 4 of those 24 countries use
> proportional systems....and the 4 who don't are NOT at the top of the list.
>
> I know both systems very well because I lived in winner take all countries
> for 35 years and have lived the past 10 years in a PR country. I've tried
> to explain how it REALLY works....based on what I see every day. But I can
> see you have trouble understanding the profoundly different perspective on
> democracy that proportional representation empowers.
>
> > "The correct and proper operation of democracy" is anything but an
> > open-and-shut case, and there is no miracle pill.
>
> The pill depends on the illness. PR certainly will address the closed,
> two-party, gerrymandered undemocratic Congress currently ruining the US
> through a mixture of corruption, patronage and passivity.
>
> > Do you have *any* concept of how politics works?
>
> I certainly - and in far more diverse political environments than the US
> Congress.
>
> > What you've just
> > described is how politics works when you have a party split in a
> > single-member plurality system, as we saw earlier this week when the US
> > House passed a Democrat-sponsored bill to allow Americans to buy
> > prescription drugs from overseas instead of paying inflated domestic
> > prices. However, once that vote was over, the members went back to
> > their own side of the aisle and it was business as usual.
>
> Sure. That's fine. Party discipline in the US is realtively weak - and that
> is good thing given all the other bad things about the US system.
>
> I can, in reply, point to the way that the Democrats have behaved like
> auxilliary republicans for the past several years. Voting for war in Iraq
> when a clear amjority of their own supporters were opposed - just one
> example. It is now clear their supporters were right. Bush was lying as
> many suspected at the time.
>
> So how - in a two-party system - can Democrats hold their representatives to
> account forsuch an action? Vote Republican?
>
> They have nowhere to go. Proportional representation gives them somewhere
> to go with tier votes. Other choices. Making the politicians MORE
> accountable....
>
> Remember....I see it here first hand this is how it works. In the real
> world. Before you dismiss me as looney, you need to remond youself that I
> am sharing with you actual experience - not polsci theory or hypotheses.
>
> > In a proportional system where one tiny party (say your 45-45-10
> > system) with a single dominant interest has the tiebreaking vote, and
> > it's an issue that they don't care overmuch about because they have a
> > single interest (reparations for slavery, continued occupation of the
> > West Bank, universal healthcare, import duties on goods produced in the
> > third world, pick one), they'll simply vote with whatever party promises
> > to back them on that issue, guaranteeing that in order to get something
> > passed that has 55% of the vote, they'll have to pass something that
> > perhaps only 10% of the people actually support.
>
> That is unlikely - for reasons already given. If the measure is actively
> opposed by the voters of the two major parties and their voters, IT WILL
> NOT PASS. To pass, one or other ofthe two major parties MUST suport it. If
> THEIR own voters do not lie that, then they will NOT do it.
>
> They may push it down the agenda, stall, buy time, or even vote withthe
> other major party to defeat it - then look that minor party in the eye and
> say: "Look. You big issue us a goner. It's over. Forget it. The other major
> party will support us on this isseus even ifyou won't."
>
> But, more likely, there not be just one minor party - but several. They
> will compete with each other for influnce with the government....and the
> government will have a slection of possible tails to wag - depending on the
> issue.
>
> This last is what actually happen here.
>
> Labour and the Progressive Coalition party are in a minority coalition
> government. They are about 4 votes short of a majority with about 56 seats
> together.
>
> Parties with more than 4 seats are:
>
> NZ First (centre-right) - 10 mps.
> Green party (centre-left) - 9 mps.
> United Future (centre-centre) - 8 mps.
> ACT (Neo-right) - 8 mps.
> ..and National (centre-right) - 27 mps.
>
> As you can see, the government only needs 4 more votes to win a given vote.
> They can choose from any of 4 parties - from centre-left to far right - and
> win the day. They are the government - and have been since 1999 - because
> the Greens and United Future prefer a Labour-lead government to a
> National-lead government.
>
> The government is a 'dog' with several possible tails it can wag - depending
> on the measure that needs support. This why you do not want just 3 parties
> in your legislature. You want 8 or 10.
>
> Two biggies - and a nice ideological spread in the middle.
>
> >>>Imagine a system in which the House or Senate were to be 47%
> >>>Democrat, 47% Republican, and 6% a splinter party headed by Charles
> >>>Barron and Al Sharpton, or Roberton and Falwell, or Noam Chomsky.
> >>
> >>So what? Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you a right to ban
> >>democracy.
> >
> > No, but it gives me a right to advocate for my own form of it. You
> > seem to be denying that anything short of proportional representation is
> > actually democracy. Well, sorry, but nearly the entire political and
> > academic community disagrees with you.
>
> In the US. Sure. Lots of people are like yourself - prepared to deny the
> real-world experience of people like me....and refer to "academic
> communities" that are similarly in denial as though that proves anything.
> Belive me, I'v e heard it all before. thisis not the first discussion I've
> ever had with an American about voting systems. :-)
>
> In the 88 countries that use PR, you find few who would back YOUR view.
>
> Talk to any European and ask them what they think of US democracy. They will
> tell you they think it is primitive and not very effective as 'democracy'.
> They, like me, have seen something better first hand.
>
> > Single-member plurality *is* a form of democracy. It is a *stable*
> > form of democracy because candidates need to appeal to where the
> > broadest number of voters are, which is hopefully in the center, and if
> > it isn't, then you've got far more problems than just institutional
> > structure.
>
> I agree. It is democracy. Just not very good democracy.
>
> > Proportional representation systems make it easier for
> > small, radical parties to hijack the political process.
>
> I'll tell you again - just forthe record - this is not true.
>
> What IS true is that in winner take all it is easier for small radical
> groups to capture one of the MAJOR parties.
>
> This what happend to the Canadian Conservative party with Brian Mulroney in
> 1984 - and he ultimately destroyed them - taking them from the largest
> majority in canadian history, to just TWO seats out of 301 in 1993.
>
> This what happened the New Zeland labour Party in 1984 - captured by
> neo-liberals who unleashed a blitzkrieg of very UN-left policies that
> nearly destroyed the Labour Party before they were purged and they formed
> the ACT party.
>
> This is what has happened in the US with G W Bush and his band of
> neoconservatives who have wanted war and American global hegemony since the
> late 1970s.
>
> If anything, PR *reduces* the damage such "capture" by radicals cando -
> because the one party they may capture will likely NOT have an majority in
> Parliament.
>
> In New Zealand, the capture of BOTH major parties by neo-conservatives is
> what DROVE the campaign to adopt proportional representation!!!
>
> So your argument about small groups of radicals in PR systems rings hollow
> here.....as I have seen it under winner take all in several countries -
> including the United States right now. What the Bush, Rumsfeld, Bennett,
> Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney grouping - if not a small band of
> extremists hwo have captured high office?
>
> > Come to America and get a political science degree, or just a few
> > comparative government courses, from a university that isn't just an
> > indoctrination center for anti-American thinking. Then we'll talk
> > again. In the meantime, I'll take my professors and my own research
> > over your rather thinly veiled contempt for the American system of
> > democracy.
>
> LOL! Keep up your studies....
>
> You what makes this even funnier? I was National Secretary and executive
> member of the non-partisan coalition that lead the successful campaign to
> change the voting system in New Zealand. I sat down with cabinet ministers
> and the prime minister and Mps from every party - and people from 200
> public organisations in my role at the centre of the campaign.
>
> I have DONE it. So you keep up your studies. You clearly have a way to go
> yet before you're done. Make sure you get some travel in. To those 88
> countries who must be in upheavel and permanent chaos according to you.
>
> That's why you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about is
> so......funny (and sad). Sad for your corner of America - wherever you may
> live.
Dave Simpson
> > People are disenchanted with "moderates" or "centrists" who sell out
> >and only appeal to those in the Mushy Middle.
> I haven't noticed this; most of the laments I hear are from people
> bitter about how far apart the parties have gone since 2000, providing
> them with two equally bad choices and no one in the center that would
> accurately represent them.
If you read enough, you'll not only see the occasional gripe about
the mainly Northeastern establishment GOP, the Rockefeller Republicans
who are more liberal than others (Bush is among these people, but
overshadowed by a more-liberal Colin Powell) and who historically have
co-opted others (Nixon, perhaps to some extent Dubya) or, if still
opposed, destroyed them politically (such as Goldwater). They're all
fine and well typically with the New Deal and the new order of things
as of the New Deal and large-part effective repeal of the U.S.
Constitution (substituting for it a federal government that is much
more national in character as well as larger in size and scope than
not only is specified by law in the Constitution, but was ever
imagined, even by the likes of Hamilton).
You will more-frequently, from the disaffected farther-left users,
notice gripes about the Democrats as being "GOP Lite," "betrayal,"
etc., and how the "Third Way" window-dressing that the rest of us see
is seen by them as a true shift rightward in practice and deeds as
well as in appearance and in words (everyone else knows the Democrats
are left of center and continue to work to shift that center, in
Washington and elsewhere, ever more leftward).
> Members of the House are elected as individuals as well, you know.
Yes -- I was referring earlier to the Senate as tempering any crazy
left-wing dreams that might arise from converting the House of
Representatives to a form of proportional representation.
> As to the approval vote, you're throwing that up as a red herring
> after the discussion about PR; I would have nothing against switching to
> an approval vote, particularly in the primaries, as long as
> single-member plurality remained the final system to determine the
> delegate to Washington.
No; it's separate from other views on retaining the single-member
districts; I would think that everyone reasonable would agree that
what would be the most important thing would be to replace
gerrymandering with rational, fair, obvious
common-sense-test-passing-shaped districts.
I have added remarks (gratuitously) about approval voting simply
because they are useful to add during discussion of single-member
office elections, because approval voting is the best way to elect the
people to those offices.
> I think a telling admission was your statement earlier, in another
> post on this thread, that you would be OK with an eventual division of
> North America north of the Rio Grande into 4-6 nations. I am not. (If
> anything, I'd like to see an eventual economic and partial political
> union of the US and Canada, and possibly even Mexico in the farther
> distant future; however, I'm happy with the way things are now as long
> as we don't divide.)
My statement earlier was a real-world view of the long term and what
arguably makes sense -- we are not homogeneous north of the Rio
Grande, as others as well as I who have lived and traveled all over
this area know. I also made the statement to present an analogy
comparable to proportional representation, the nature of coalitions,
and "balance of power" politics, that was even better for this
purpose, describing this nation, than would be the analogy to the
system of older times in Europe, where "balance of power" politics
essentially was defined.
I am not insisting that we divide and re-join (Canada is not
homogeneous, either, and its best ties are north-south rather than
east-west), but I don't object to future situations that make sense to
me. A simpler example, and one that I have presented before, would be
for the most-liberal parts of the USA, which happen to abut Canada
(New England and possibly New York; the Upper Great Lakes, especially
Michigan; the coastal Pacific Northwest), to secede from the USA and
join Canada. Greens could merge with the NDP, and all the liberals in
these places would immediately get national gun control, health care,
and an official federal-provincial relation that is the inverse of
what is in our Constitution, but which is often accomplished fact here
in the USA as well as desired by liberals constantly, law, facts, and
propriety be damned. (In Canada the central government has all rights
reserved to it but those that are delegated to the provinces,
basically.)
Another related gratuitous note needs re-stating: Were the northern
USA to do this, secede and join Canada, the liberals would still be
too stupid or chickenshit to get rich and better afford all kinds of
social-spending programs by selling water and electricity to an
ever-more-needful southern remnant of the USA.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Typical "Black / White" or binary thinking patterns that are common among
> conservatives. They are always trying to force extremes. I believe its
> cause is a deep urge for simplification over accuracy while giving the
> illusion of accuracy.
You also are free to believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, as
do so many liberals when it comes to the role of government, but the
rest of us don't have to take it seriously if you express such
beliefs.
Dave Simpson
Dan Listermann
Interestingly you totally failed to address my point.
--
Dave Simpson
foreigners. Other nations have their own laws. This isn't some
dipshit "one world" scenario, Steve.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> > As far as the gerrymandering problem, the first thing to look at is
> >simply to re-draw the districts much more fairly, rationally,
> >sensibly, even using a bi-partisan commission (like with military base
> >closings). Combine ZIP codes or U.S. census districts that are
> >contiguous and try (to make the shapes the most plain and fair) to
> >minimize the periphery length of each district. (As few side as
> >possible to each polygon, in normal words, just draw plain, basic
> >districts.)
> Now *that* I would support wholeheartedly, though it would still get
> muddy at least every ten years, as redistricting needs to happen then to
> reflect the general loss of representatives by the Northeast towards the
> South and Southwest. No one said any human system would ever be
> perfect, though.
It would mean re-drawing the districts every ten years, but even
then, aside from the relatively infrequent need to re-draw, couldn't
it be fairly easy to do?
We wouldn't even need to go with ZIP codes or census districts,
though the second would be useful and even necessary to use to derive
the boundaries.
We could use the mean centers of population as starting reference
points, though most useful here would be the median centers of
population (half north, half south, half east, half west); the mean
would be likely useful enough. What you'd do is take the population
center and successively divide the state as needed so that the correct
fraction was to each side of the divisional boundaries. To locate the
districts, you'd have equal numbers on each side of the population
center if it were an even number of seats, and you'd have one district
always located centered on that population center if it were an odd
number of seats. (Include to begin, for example, the census district
that corresponded to the center of population center.)
Let's say you had just three seats. One district would be centered
on the state's center of population. The dividing line (boundary,
actually) of this district would be such that 2/3 of the population
was outside this central district. You then would take the remainder
and divide it in half to arrive at the three districts.
If you had five districts, then the situation above would be changed
such that the central district would be at the 4/5-population-outside
location, and then each of the other four districts would have 1/5 of
the population or 1/4 of the remainder. You could do two successive
halvings to make it simple and keep it contiguous.
This should be a lot less difficult than gerrymandering!!!
Dave Simpson
The Frog
One could also argue that the democratic process calls for the
allowance of redistricting at this time. The rules allow it, just as
the rules allowed the courts to intevene.
So why is one wrong and the other right?
az-willie
===========
Yes it does. The pharmaceutical companies spend many millions of dollars
on legislators to keep them from putting some rationality into
prescriptions.
These companies often make 5000 and more percent on prescriptions in
this country because there is no limitations put on their greed.
Foreign countries only allow them a certain set amount of profit say
500%. Still enough money to fund research, and that is proven by the
fact that foreign companies invent many drugs, but they don't allow them
to rape the customers the way American law ( or lack of it ) allows them
to charge anything they want.
Our companies are quite happy to sell drugs at much lower prices in
foreign countries such as Mexico and Canada because they are still
making a nice profit even though their profit is limited by government
action. If they weren't making money they would refuse to ship to those
countries.
Dave Simpson
> There are some absolute limits that need to be recognised.
>
> - How many hours in a day.
> - How many days in a month.
> - How many months in a term.
- How much money we have to spend, and how much new buildings in
Washington we should construct, and maintain, and staff.
> With 300m people, the US Congress has to work out how to 'scale' up to be
> both effectively democratic and representative.
Everything is a tradeoff. We cannot have five reps per state
minimum in the House of Representatives. It would be too large. 600
is pushing it, and 700 is getting quite risky. 1,000 would be
rejected by most normal people as too expensive, not to mention
impossibly cumbersome in how a body that large would function.
> > A House of Representatives over 2,000 members would be a dead issue.
> I would not give up so easily as you do. Two thousand reps is hardly any in
> a nation of almost 300,000,000 people.
The 300,000,000 is irrelevent. The issue is a legislative body of
2,000 members and how it would function, as well as even more-pressing
concerns at that level such as all the new buildings that would have
to be built to house and staff these representatives, as well as
replace the existing Congressional facilities in the Capitol itself.
We could pack more Reps in, airline-sardine-style, the current
facilities, and even increase office space with existing facilities if
we reduce staff sizes.
> The cost would be trivial compared to the total budget. The cost would be
> trivial compared to just the defence portion of the total budget.
No. Anyone can argue that $1 extra per person per year also is
trivial, but...
As you said:
> Practicality is an issue. The conduct of debates would require good
> management and some discipline. Remember this is a representative body and
> not an executive body.
It's a body, and with 2,000 members, it's going to be cumbersome.
> I have attended conferecnes with up to 5,000 people in attendance. These
> work well if well organised. Information is circulated. Debates on the
> floor do work - provided you accpet that once someone has made a point, you
> do not have 50 more people repeat it. Votes are taken. Decisions made.
How many are able to make a point when you have 5,000 people,
however?
> There would also be many willing hands for committee work and hearings - not
> to mention campaigning.
To the extent that this replaces staff members, which form an
insider unelected government, fine, though they ought to be working in
Congress rather than campaigning.
> If each member had smaller districts / Congressional responsibilities, they
> might not need as many staff. Today they have large staff because they are
> so few and the nation so populous.
No. They have large staffs because they want and can appropriate
tax money for them.
We have to look at what's real and not merely affordable, but
workable and practical. Going from 435 members up to 500 shouldn't be
a problem; I'd be willing to go up to 600-650 or even 700 or so if
they could all be fit into the existing Capitol floor space and little
or no new construction of office buildings was required. Getting too
much larger than that makes the body itself unworkable as well as too
expensive an undertaking and constant expense afterward.
(This ignores the unlikely abolition of the Senate, which would free
Capitol and office space for additional Representatives.)
In addition to practical limits, we must try to foresee the future
electorate size and if we re-size, plan as far ahead as possible --
unlike with existing politicians, including when we've retired, and
then when we're gone.
Here are 2050 and 2100 US Census population projections:
[thousands, by different estimates, the first being most likely;
in order, middle, low, high, zero international migration series]
2010 299,862 291,413 310,910
287,710
2020 324,927 303,664 354,642
301,636
2030 351,070 311,656 409,604
313,219
2040 377,350 314,673 475,949
321,167
2050 403,687 313,546 552,757
327,641
2060 432,011 310,533 642,752
334,724
2070 463,639 306,589 749,257
343,815
2080 497,830 300,747 873,794
354,471
2090 533,605 292,584 1,017,344
365,689
2100 570,954 282,706 1,182,390
377,444
United Nations projections, which include an emphasis on fertility
trends and population aging, are as follows:
[thousands, medium variant]
2025 358,030
2050 408,695
(I'll leave it to each other reader to decide which to include, any
weighting schemes, etc.)
The electorate, adults, can be estimated normally to be one-half the
total population. (Replacement fertility is slightly above two
children per woman, or roughly two per woman, replacing the mother and
father, normally conceived and born in a marriage, i.e., the parents
are a couple.) We actually don't have to plan for "inhabitants" as
all people, but only for adult citizens, if we re-size the House of
Representatives or other political bodies.
Not only that, but most activists would want re-sizing to occur
according to historical "progress."
If you want to use the "cube root" rule:
a Census medium-series electorate of 202 million in 2050
yields a cube root of 587 Representatives;
a UN medium-variant electorate of 204.5 million in 2050
yields a cube root of 589 Representatives;
a Census medium-series electorate in 485.5 million in 2100
yields a cube root of 786 Representatives.
a future electorate of 500 million
yields a cube root of 794 Representatives.
a gargantuan 2100 electorate of 591.2 million
yields a cube root of 839 Representatives.
Dave Simpson
Mitchell Holman
What happened to redictricting based
on the new census data, every ten years?
Are the Republicans really going to demand
redistricting at the end of every election?
The Frog
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
Exactly !! The people of Texas never got their chance at the end of
the last census.
However, by your logic, the democratic process would be served as long
as the rules allowed for it.
You like it in the US Senate when archaic rules prevent a vote on
judicial nominees. Don't you like it when someone else is driving the
truck?
Mitchell Holman
Yes, they did.
Even the GOP Atty General said the current
map was valid and good until 2010. And the GOP
Supreme Court concurred.
Funny you didn't complain when the same
Supreme Court certified the Florida vote. But
now they are "liberal" when it comes to the
Texas congressional lines?
>
> However, by your logic, the democratic process would be served as long
> as the rules allowed for it.
The "rules" say the current map is legal and valid.
> You like it in the US Senate when archaic rules prevent a vote on
> judicial nominees.
Are you talking about how the GOP refused to even
CONSIDER the Clinton nominees, much less vote on them?
Michael
> If I had my choice between the representatives of the people and the
> courts, I would choose the people every time.
But they don't represent the "people", they represent the major donors who
paid for their election campaign.
Barbara Walker
"Michael" <para...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3F266753...@frontiernet.net...
And since it is the people who are the "major donors", they do indeed
represent The People. Funny how the Democrats suddenly start claiming
"it's not the people" when the Democrats begin LOSING the elections, ain't
it!
The Frog
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
Sure the map as it is is lawful, but not "of the people". That is why
it is to be changed. The people's representatives never got a voice.
I think the Supreme Court has followed the law in both cases. Lawful
is a necessary characteristic or any map. It doesn't make it
desireable or democracy friendly.
>> However, by your logic, the democratic process would be served as long
>> as the rules allowed for it.
>
>
> The "rules" say the current map is legal and valid.
It is lawful. So what?
The rules also allow for change if the majority wish it. So why do you
care what the people of Texas want?
>> You like it in the US Senate when archaic rules prevent a vote on
>> judicial nominees.
>
>
> Are you talking about how the GOP refused to even
>CONSIDER the Clinton nominees, much less vote on them?
These are the rules and they are a double edged sword.
Get over it.
The Frog
wrote:
Election by voters is the standard we use. It's called democracy.
If you have a better standard to choose legitimacy, let's here it.
Your friend,
The Frog
Mitchell Holman
Modern conservative: Someone who can take time out
from dissing the Supreme Court as not being "of the people"
to salute the same Supreme Court for making a president out
of the candidate who lost the popular vote.
>
> I think the Supreme Court has followed the law in both cases. Lawful
> is a necessary characteristic or any map. It doesn't make it
> desireable or democracy friendly.
The current map is valid and legal for the
rest of the decade, according to everyone but
Tom Delay and Rick Perry.
>
>
>
>
>>> However, by your logic, the democratic process would be served as
long
>>> as the rules allowed for it.
>>
>>
>> The "rules" say the current map is legal and valid.
>
> It is lawful. So what?
> The rules also allow for change if the majority wish it. So why do you
> care what the people of Texas want?
Funny you should mention "What the people want".
July 23, 2003
ALMOST 90 PERCENT OF WITNESSES TESTIFIED AGAINST REDISTRICTING
Staples claims his map incorporated views of general public
At this morning's Senate Jurisprudence Committee hearing, state
Sen. Todd Staples (R-Palestine) claimed his new map "incorporated"
the public's input when he unveiled Plan 01327C.
Soon afterwards state Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville) read out
the final tally on redistricting hearing witnesses at the Senate's
hearings. Lucio said 89.44% of witnesses opposed redistricting.
"This map is the will of the partisan members of the legislature,
not the will of the public," Lucio said.
>
>
>
>>> You like it in the US Senate when archaic rules prevent a vote on
>>> judicial nominees.
>>
>>
>> Are you talking about how the GOP refused to even
>>CONSIDER the Clinton nominees, much less vote on them?
>
> These are the rules and they are a double edged sword.
> Get over it.
Tell that to your GOP whining about Bush
nominees "not getting a fair hearing".
What goes around comes around.
Mitchell Holman
news:U7uVa.5886$Oz4.1686@rwcrnsc54:
>
> "Michael" <para...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:3F266753...@frontiernet.net...
>> The Frog wrote:
>>
>> > If I had my choice between the representatives of the people and
>> > the courts, I would choose the people every time.
>>
>> But they don't represent the "people", they represent the major
>> donors who paid for their election campaign.
>
>
> And since it is the people who are the "major donors", they do indeed
> represent The People.
Oh, yes. The folks attending $2,000-a-plate
Bush dinners really represent "the people", don't
they.
Weren't you the one complaining about trial
lawyers and all the money they gave Democrats?
Aren't they "the people" as well?
Just walk away, Rene...
The Frog
I believe this is "hard money", which every individual citizen has
that right.
The Trial Lawyers donate huge sums of "soft money', not as
individuals, but as a group, which had no limits.
Which one looks more like "the people"?
John Willimans
If you are stricktly arguing technicalities, then if you can get a quorom,
redistrict away! If you can't find a quorom, too bad, rules are rules.
The Frog
<jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
How true, John.
I believe the use of the rules disparages the Democrats more than the
Republicans. Why? They aren't doing the running away.
That really plays badly with the public, over all.......
Dave Simpson
> As to the approval vote, you're throwing that up as a red herring
> after the discussion about PR;
I thought about this last night and wanted to address this issue
once more. I agree that this is a separate issue than P.R., but we
were also discussing alternatives more closely resembling the status
quo, consisting of retaining the single-member districts (rather than
going to P.R.) and I mentioned the approval vote as an improvement
along with others such as the obvious need to re-draw districts
sensibly rather than cunningly-crazily.
What follows approaches legalism but you may find it of interest:
For the record, I have stated before that the essence of a red
herring is a distraction, be it a complete change of subject, or just
dwelling on something that is mentioned and momentarily changing the
subject thereby. I also, in thinking of this, would include something
else of interest. It's not only the act but the intent that lies
behind the red herring argument, and I would say if I wanted to defend
myself, that distraction isn't enough (it may, after all, be
accidental or erroneous by the audience), but a true red herring
includes the intention, and even though in the past I've said that it
is a distraction, were I to defend myself in a real red-herring case,
I would argue that a red herring isn't merely a distraction, but a
true diversion.
Did you know that Uday Hussein had some of his victims fed to lions?
Sorry to go too much in detail about this, but I didn't try any red
herring with the approval vote; first I addressed P.R., then I
addressed the follow-up subject of alternatives with the status quo
rather than going to P.R..
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Interestingly you totally failed to address my point.
You failed to see that I did. Your "point" was nonsense, and to the
extent that any part of it was true, it applies to liberals rather
than conservatives.
Dave Simpson
John Willimans
Unless the public agrees with them. I hear the governor is slipping in the
polls, maybe insignificant, maybe not. It doesn't jive with you and your
friends opinions, that is for sure.
Dan Listermann
Again you dodge my point.
Phoenix Rising
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:18:20 GMT, "John Willimans"
><jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"The Frog" <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
>>news:7i7bivgjgkk1nngtt...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>One could also argue that the democratic process calls for the
>>>allowance of redistricting at this time. The rules allow it, just as
>>>the rules allowed the courts to intevene.
>>>So why is one wrong and the other right?
>>>
>>>
>>If you are stricktly arguing technicalities, then if you can get a quorom,
>>redistrict away! If you can't find a quorom, too bad, rules are rules.
>>
>>
>
>How true, John.
>I believe the use of the rules disparages the Democrats more than the
>Republicans. Why? They aren't doing the running away.
>That really plays badly with the public, over all.......
>
If that's the case, then rather than complaining about a technically
legal parliamentary tactic, why not simply roll with the punch and play
off the fact that it does indeed look bad? Party loyalty and discipline
is at an all-time low; record and increasing numbers of people classify
themselves as independent. I imagine you are 100% correct and the
flight-response of the Democrats in Texas does indeed look bad to the
electorate ... quite possibly enough to enable the GOP to simply pick up
on it and run with it in the next election, and maybe pick up seats
despite the current map. Texas' voting patterns have been going
increasingly Republican as the Democratic national platform skids
further and further left.
Roll with the punches. (One of life's little lessons that neither
party seems to be able to grasp.)
--Phoenix Rising
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>> Think of it this way. The members of Congress - and the President - are
>> the ONLY people who are directly accountable to voters nationally.
>
> I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here are the facts:
>
> Representatives and Senators are accountable to voters directly,
The Senate and the House ARE Congress.
> making it also nationally. (That it is direct is what makes it also
> national rather than federal, which normally is indirect, through the
> individual states.)
>
> The President and Vice President are not directly accountable.
> These officials are not directly elected. Given the hugely ignorant
> and vulgar vote for Gore in 2000, you aren't the only one, but you are
> in need of learning about our Electoral College.
Please don't waste your best pedantry on me. :-)
I know ALL about the electoral college. I also know that it generally
reflects the way people voted - except perhaps when the vote is close.
The President and Veep are accountable to voters nationally and the
electoral college is normally a simple pass-thru.....except for (past 50
years) Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 and Gore - Bush in 2000.
But 2000 is a special case because it is now clear that Gore should have won
either way - vote or electoral college - if Jeb Bush hadn't corrupted the
Florida electoral rolls and the election process itself.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Dave Simpson
> > The President and Vice President are not directly accountable.
> > These officials are not directly elected. Given the hugely ignorant
> > and vulgar vote for Gore in 2000, you aren't the only one, but you are
> > in need of learning about our Electoral College.
> Please don't waste your best pedantry on me. :-)
I was not being pedantic.
"Gore should have won either way" is a lie.
Bush won. Gore lost. The Gore coup attempt failed. Grow up, Steve.
Dave Simpson
Miles
> Dave Simpson allegedly said:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Think of it this way. The members of Congress - and the President - are
> >> the ONLY people who are directly accountable to voters nationally.
> >
> > I'm afraid you're mistaken. Here are the facts:
> >
> > Representatives and Senators are accountable to voters directly,
>
> The Senate and the House ARE Congress.
>
> > making it also nationally. (That it is direct is what makes it also
> > national rather than federal, which normally is indirect, through the
> > individual states.)
> >
> > The President and Vice President are not directly accountable.
> > These officials are not directly elected. Given the hugely ignorant
> > and vulgar vote for Gore in 2000, you aren't the only one, but you are
> > in need of learning about our Electoral College.
>
> Please don't waste your best pedantry on me. :-)
>
> I know ALL about the electoral college. I also know that it generally
> reflects the way people voted - except perhaps when the vote is close.
>
> The President and Veep are accountable to voters nationally and the
> electoral college is normally a simple pass-thru.....except for (past 50
> years) Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 and Gore - Bush in 2000.
>
> But 2000 is a special case because it is now clear that Gore should have won
> either way - vote or electoral college - if Jeb Bush hadn't corrupted the
> Florida electoral rolls and the election process itself.
????? In every article , every study, etc. I've seen since the debacle
in Florida has concluded that yes, Bush would have won. I believe
there was one study, who's results were one of the last to be
released, stated that Gore *may* have won if... and I can't recall
what the *if* was but I do remember it was a real long shot event that
would have had to happen. The NYT, Wash Post, et al studies all
concluded that yes, Bush would have won no matter what.
Dave Simpson
> Roll with the punches. (One of life's little lessons that neither
> party seems to be able to grasp.)
If the state and the Republicans cannot do anything else currently,
they need to do this -- in so rolling, learning a lesson. The Dems'
behavior in Texas already is fine fuel for campaign ads, anyway.
If there were existing remedies -- ability to replace the existing
legislators under emergency conditions, ability to revise quorum size
downward in such a situation (no different than if, say, the Dem
legislators died in an airplane crash and elections were not
imminent), etc., then the state and the GOP has to sit and wait.
Hopefully at least in the future such scumminess by the Democrats can
be forestalled or prevented.
Dave Simpson