Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Lt. Gov Grunge
According to the Seattle Times, former Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic is considering running for lieutenant governor of Washinton state in 2004. One truly interesting proposal of his is to group the state's current 49 legislative districts into 9 large ones, from which the 11 top vote getters from each would become representitives of their respective districts (this would apply to the house only, and not to state senate races).
Part of the purpose behind this quasi-parlimentarian approach would be to insure that members of 3rd parties will be represented in Olympia, though Novoselic himself would most likely run as a Democrat.
You can read more at his own website: www.fixour.us -- while also taking note of how much this former grungster-turned-would-be-politico looks like a young Jerry Brown in the site's photo.
Ken Layne|11.21.03 @ 4:04AM|#
Hooray for Peter Bagge on Hit & Run! Can we expect some
one-panel blog cartoons now and then?
(And Tim and/or Nick, could you make the main page show more posts
again? By the time my lazy ass gets to Hit 'n Run, half the day's
posts are already in the annoying archives. Yr loyal reader,
KDL.)
thoreau|11.21.03 @ 5:01AM|#
I like the idea of multi-member districts to ensure proportionate representation of third parties.
JDM|11.21.03 @ 5:50AM|#
Are there any legal obstacles to states implementing proportional representation for their own governments?
digamma|11.21.03 @ 6:12AM|#
If he wins, let's hope he doesn't throw a flag in the air to celebrate....
Kevin Carson|11.21.03 @ 6:18AM|#
The problem with such large districts was pointed out by the antifederalists 200 years ago: the larger the district, the harder it is for anyone to run who doesn't have lots of money or the backing of powerful interests. It's the same principle you see at the local level, where it's the moneyed interests who want at-large aldermen.
|11.21.03 @ 6:30AM|#
It is better for governance for coalitions to be made explicitly
before elections rather than after.
Thus I would not tinker with the current system.
The weakest member of any coalition always calls the tune. Better
to have these adjustments voted on than made defacto after an
election.
Russ D|11.21.03 @ 7:46AM|#
I guess I can never be satisfied with the political process, but
I don't think this is satisfactory. I don't mind partisian
politics, I just don't like being forced into it. I would still
rather be able to vote for an individual first, and take party
representation as a consolation prize.
I would propose a kind of reverse primary. Vote for the candidate
you want. Any candidate who gets, say, 25% of the vote gets a seat;
you don't HAVE to declare a party to vote. This way, a true
independent CAN get in without having to declare party allegiance,
leaving the possibility that person could still join a party later.
This is 4 seats at most "at large". The remaining seats could be
porportioned based on the party splits of the overall vote, but
rather than letting the party decide, you have a party run-off
after the general election, if Dems are awarded 3 of the eleven
seats and one dem got 25% of the vote, registered dems get to vote
for who fills the remaining two seats.
I don't like the winner-take-all approach most of government works,
but I'm a little leery of the clusterfuck approach too after seeing
how this only semi-works in Boston. Some neighborhoods do wind up
without representation and some get more than they might deserve
because the "districts" are sliced too big, less grass roots. Seems
like there's a better way than going from 49 winner-takes-all
districts to 9
who-knows-if-your-locale-within-the-district-gets-represented
"supersections". Senates are enough supersizing of government,
maybe the house would be better with 21 districts, 8 reps
each.
(I know that's more overall seats, just reduce the individual
salaries accordingly. The at-large winners get real desks in the
house, the remaining ones have to bring folding chairs or sit on
the floor. No sense in awarding construction contracts so that
every representative gets a cushy chair. Or maybe the at-large
winners get a salary and the other reps are pro bono.)
arjay|11.22.03 @ 1:47AM|#
I do not know how it works now but when I lived in Tasmania 40
yrs ago the lower house (House of Assembly), consisted of five
Seven-member districts elected by the Hare* system of proportional
representation. The upper house (Legislative Council) was elected
in single member districts by preferential ballot ("instant
run-off") by property-owners or leaseholders of over ten pounds (at
that time about $22.50) per year (which of course included just
about everyone, except adults who still lived with their
parents).
As I recall it produced rather satisfactory representation. The
major parties did not like it because it did not produce the big
majorities that are liked in the parliamentary system. The minor
parties liked it because it gave them a voice even if they did not
have a chance at ruling power [of course the five districts (rather
than a statewide vote) were created to dilute the minority vote (on
the other hand they may have been created to respond to Kevin
Carson's complaint that large districts remove the elector from his
representative)].
My father was a big fan of the system, as was a friend of his, a
political scientist who had come from the US to Tasmania especially
to study it. According to my father's friend's estimates 80% of
voters were represented by their first choice.
*Hare was an Irish barrister who invented a system of proportional
representation which allowed the voter to pick individual
representatives rather than parties. The system used in Tasmania is
called Hare-Clark because of modifications that were introduced by
Clark, the Premier of Tasmania at the time of Australian
Federation.
The Hare system is quite different from the Party-list systems that
are used extensively in Europe.
arjay|11.22.03 @ 3:27AM|#
I just reread the article and what Novoselic is advocating is
"Party-List" proportional representation rather than the "at-large"
representation that Bagge's post suggested. The "Irish" or
"Tasmanian" system allows you to pick the actual person you want as
a representative. Party-List simply lets you pick a party and the
divvies up the votes and puts the party hacks in office. While
"at-large" is not really satisfactory it is better than
"party-list" but the Hare system wins in my book.
JDM
To the best of my knowledge, there is no obstacle to states using
PR for their state govts and furthermore to elect their
Congressional delegation. Furthermore as far as I know there is no
obstacle to their using preferential balloting ("instant run-off")
to elect Senators (or for that matter Governor, AGs, county
commissioners*, sherriffs and the like).
*The Hare system is ideal for small bodies (like City Councils and
County Commissions). The advantage here is that gerrymandering
cannot be not excercised.
thoreau|11.22.03 @ 4:15AM|#
Proportional Representation doesn't have to be done on a party
basis (i.e. you vote for a party, and the parties get seats). It
can be done on a candidate basis in such a way that anybody with
the support of, say, 10% of the voters gets one of the 10
seats.
The simplest one to describe is cumulative voting. Say there are 5
seats and 100 voters. Each voter gets 5 votes to distribute as he
pleases (yes, it might take some careful ballot design, but let's
leave that aside for now). So there are 500 votes out there.
Say that 20 voters (hypothetically) like a candidate who doesn't
fit the mold of the 2 big parties. If we were only electing one
candidate then they would never get representation. (Hmm, sort of
like the problem facing libertarians, both small-l and big-L.) But
if we elect 5, those 20 people could put all of their votes behind
one person, and he'd get 100 of the 500 votes. He'd be guaranteed a
spot. Meanwhile, larger interest groups, be they parties, or
single-issue groups, could endorse, say, 2 or 3 candidates and urge
like-minded voters to distribute their votes among those 2 or 3
instead of among 5 candidates.
I know, big districts have problems. But single-member districts
have one huge problem that has been around for 200 years and only
gotten worse: gerrymandering. (Named after a politician named Gerry
who drew a salamander-shaped district 200 years ago to ensure the
election of somebody from his party.) Gerrymandering destroys
competition.
Kevin talked about large districts distancing people from their
representatives. I'd rather be in a large district and have the
ability to make sure at least one of the representatives shares my
philosophy, rather than be in a small district that is
gerrymandered to the point where election outcomes are already
determined and I have almost no chance of influencing the
outcome.
Now, some people have talked about the problem of coalitions
disintegrating. Those matter in parliamentary systems where the
executive is chosen by the legislature. But if the executive is
elected separately, coalitions exist only to pass legislation. And
I don't mind if legislative coalitions fall apart and they aren't
able to push through some huge bill full of subsidies, regulations,
tarriffs, taxes, pork, etc.
Finally, somebody asked if there would be any legal obstacle to a
state using proportional representation for at least one branch of
its legislature. Let's assume there's nothing the state
constitution barring it, or that the state constitution is amended
to allow it. There would undoubtedly be some political group
(party, ethnic group, whatever) who currently benefits from
gerrymandering, and they would undoubtedly try to claim that the
multi-member district violates their equal protection under the
14th amendment. However dubious the argument is, they could
probably tie it up in federal court for a while. I don't know if
they'd win, but they could create delays.
arjay|11.22.03 @ 5:00AM|#
www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/infohareclark.html
www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/house.htm
arjay|11.22.03 @ 5:07AM|#
"Are there any legal obstacles to states implementing
proportional representation for their own governments?"
I guess there are. I was mistaken earlier.
www.prairienet.org/icpr/
and scroll down to
"Bill in Congress would alllow States to use Proportional
Representation"
As you might have guessed I think PR would be a big improvement
over the current system.
Kevin Carson|11.22.03 @ 6:07AM|#
thoreau,
When a country is the size of the U.S., there's never a completely
satisfactory solution. I'd like to see multiparty representation
that more accurately reflects the range of opinion. But I'd also
like to see districts small enough for a working class person to
get elected by knocking on doors. Not only are the two values
pretty much mutually exclusive, but the latter can't be done at all
without increasing Congress to an unwieldy number of
representatives.
When the Constitution originally called for districts of 50,000
people, the antifederalists rightly complained that it would lead
to a class of professional politicians responsive only to moneyed
interests. But if we went back to that ratio today, there'd be
around 6000 members in the House. Just more evidence that it's
impossible for any centralized state operating on a continental
scale to function as a genuinely popular government.
Now on a state level, the trade-off might be different. But even in
the 1780s, people were arguing that Virginia, Pennsylvania and
Massachusetts ought to be broken up because they were too big for
genuine republican government. They were probably right.
Mike Alissi|11.22.03 @ 8:56AM|#
Ken - Good suggestion about displaying more entries on the main Hit & Run page. Just changed it from 15 to 25.
|11.23.03 @ 4:05AM|#
One good thing can be said about our two-party system -- it
keeps the under-represented loonies under-represented.
I don't believe we stop to appreciate that nearly enough.
thoreau|11.23.03 @ 6:38AM|#
Kevin-
I see your point, but I still think proportional representation in
one chamber of a bicameral legislature is a good idea.
It's nice to think of an ordinary guy knocking on doors, running
without a party label, and simply persuading enough of his fellow
citizens that he's a good guy to represent them. Then he goes to
Washington and holds his own against the "good old boys" via
honesty and hard work. And then he marries his high school
sweetheart before the credits roll, but only after he first loses
her and then wins her back by proving that he's still the same
simple and honest guy she's always known. And he even saves a lost
puppy while he's at it.
But when's the last time that happened in the US Congress?
Anyway, it's very unlikely that we'll see proportional
representation in the US Congress for a while. But it is worth
experimenting with at the state level. One chamber of the
legislature could be elected from districts of 5 to 10 people and
still have districts of manageable size (certainly smaller than US
House districts) while the other chamber is elected from
single-member districts. We could see how well it works at the
state level before trying anything with the US Congress. (Maybe a
good place to look for inspiration would be Switzerland, which has
strong traditions of stability, bicameralism, federalism,
multi-party politics, and decentralization.)
My motivation isn't just the selfish desire to see a Libertarian in
office. (Although I freely admit to that.) The simple fact is that
when you have only one vote and you elect only one legislator a
two-party system is inevitable. Look around the world and you'll
find plenty of examples (although I freely acknowledge that Britain
has a sizable third party). On the other hand, even going to
something as simple as instant runoff voting produces at least some
third party involvement, and multi-member districts produce lots of
third party competition.
Why am I such a big fan of multi-party systems? Competition is just
as valuable in the marketplace of ideas as it is in the marketplace
of anything else.
Now, some might engage in political ancestor worship and insist
that our system is perfect and should not be modified in the least
bit. Well, are you really all that happy with your state and
federal governments? Are you actually happy that your choices are
always Democrats and Republicans? However big or small the
differences between those parties might be, it's clear that
libertarian ideas (big L or small l) aren't getting much attention
in DC or the state capitols. Wouldn't it be nice if you could see
more than 2 ideas out there competing, and actually have a chance
to elect somebody who will represent real libertarian ideas (let's
face it, Ron Paul is kind of lonely right now).
Finally, somebody will probably point to the horrors of multi-party
systems and say that we could wind up like modern Italy or Nazi
Germany. Those sorts of instabilities are much less of a problem if
the executive is elected separately from the legislature (i.e. keep
a presidential system rather than a parliamentary system) and also
depend considerably on political culture. There are plenty of
countries that have used proportional representation without
sinking into some nightmare.
|11.23.03 @ 12:19PM|#
The man who knocked himself out by dropping his guitar on his head is running for populat office. Interesting.
joe|11.24.03 @ 1:03AM|#
fyodor, if the supporters of the big parties used all their
votes to put one candidate way over the top, they'd only succeed in
electing 2 of nine candidates, despite having 70-90% of voters.
That wouldn't be "catching on."
Anon, being underrepresented not only keeps the wackos
underrepresented; it also keeps them wackos. Why bother to
distinguish between your good, workable ideas and your silly hobby
horses when there is no downside to going crazy and keeping the
troops fired up, and no upside to adopting a reasonably workable
platform?
thoreau|11.24.03 @ 1:11AM|#
Fyodor-
When there are 500 votes (100 people, 5 votes apiece), and you're
electing the top 5 candidates, anybody with 100 votes is guaranteed
to be in the top 5. For that matter, anybody with 500/6 = 84 votes
(when rounded up) is guaranteed to be in the top 5.
I should emphasize that the reverse is not always true: The top 5
candidates won't always have 84 or more votes apiece, some will
have less, but anybody with 84 or more votes is mathematically
guaranteed to be one of the top 5 in this scenario.
fyodor|11.24.03 @ 6:29AM|#
Joe & thoreau,
Of course, if everyone had one vote each, the single votes of those
twenty voters would accomplish the same thing, no? Because getting
20 of 100 votes would guarantee you being in the top five, right?
So okay, thoreau, the numbers you use make you right about that
your "guarantee" for that particular scenario. But my point is that
once the backers of major party candidates start grouping their
votes like the backers of "third party" candidates, the effect
cited by thoreau would vanish. At least the effect of having
multiple votes. Now, maybe having at large candidates by itself
would accomplish the same thing. And that is why I ask if there's
any conclusion we can draw based on municipalities that already do
this. If it hasn't worked this way thus far, why expect it to in
the future?
thoreau|11.24.03 @ 6:43AM|#
One vote per voter would certainly give that group of 20 people
one representative. But it would give a group of 40 people only one
representative instead of 2, which would seem more reasonable
considering their size. Giving each person 5 votes to distribute as
they wish would mean that the 40 voters could each give their
candidates 2 or 3 votes, and the result would be each of those
candidates getting somewhere between 80 and 120 votes (the sum
being 200), enough to virtually guarantee the group gets 2
representatives, as it should with its size.
If those 40 voters each only got one vote they'd have to decide on
a way to decide who votes for whom, so that each of their
candidates would get in the ballpark of 20 votes and hence be
guaranteed a win.
Of course, what I described is the simplest system. There are more
complicated (and arguably better) systems that ensure
proportionality and don't require codifying the role of parties
(i.e. party list systems like many European countries). For a
description of such systems go to www.fairvote.org. I just
described a very simple system to illustrate the point that one can
get proportional representation of different groups without
resorting to a party list system.
fyodor|11.24.03 @ 11:35AM|#
thoreau,
Re: "But if we elect 5, those 20 people could put all of their
votes behind one person, and he'd get 100 of the 500 votes. He'd be
guaranteed a spot."
At the risk of quibbling, aren't you overstating the case quite a
bit to say it would be guaranteed? Besides the fact that nothing is
so easily guaranteed, sooner or later backers of major party
candidates might just start doing the same thing, i.e. use all
their votes for one candidate, or at least go part way in that
direction. Wouldn't that nullify the effect of having several
selections? And BTW, doesn't some form of this already take place
in some city elections? And wouldn't that provide some empirical
data we can use to test our conjectures?
Krist Novoselic|12.13.03 @ 1:28AM|#
Thank you Peter Bagge for starting this thread. I look forward
to meeting you again and hope to do so soon.
I am enjoying this discussion so much that I feel the need to join
such good company.
Many people are responding positively to Super-Districts. With all
of the apathy and cynicism today, I feel Proportional
Representation is an idea worth considering.
A frequent criticism of my proposal is the closed party list. The
term �party-hack� was used in this thread and I admit that
sentiment does carry a certain amount of weight.
The plan can be amended to an open list. This way a voter would
check the party -and- their favorite candidate from the same party
list on the ballot. Seats are allocated by the same formula but the
difference is the top vote getters on the list would win the
proportion of seats .
Super-Districts are good for retail politics. Each party would have
a team of 11 members engaging constituents. The �team� could
reflect diverse ethnic, economic or other sensibilities of the
district. 11 members could attend neighborhood association meetings
or business community forums -- to name a few. 11 members could fan
out over the district knocking on doors.
As far as �keeping the under-represented loonies being
under-represented�, it can be said our current system keeps plenty
of, so-called, loonies over-represented too. Super-Districts more
accurately reflect the ideological make-up of the constituency in
the legislature than our current system. The threshold for
representation of Super-Districts is about 9%. In a district of
300,000 voters a party would need about 27,000 votes to win a seat.
That is very near the vote total House Rep�s currently get in
Washington to win. 9% is a much higher threshold than most of the
proportionally elected democracies around the world use.
Super-Districts will not change the way our State Senate or
executive officers are elected.
Thank you,
Krist Novoselic
flowers|12.6.04 @ 2:47PM|#
You are invited to check out some information dedicated to http://www.debt-consolidation-consultant.info/ http://www.debt-consolidation-consultant.info/ debt consolidation http://www.flowers-leading-site.info/ http://www.flowers-leading-site.info/ flowers http://www.flower-leading-site.info/ http://www.flower-leading-site.info/ flower http://www.credit-reports-4u.info/ http://www.credit-reports-4u.info/ credit reports http://www.credit-report-4u.info/ http://www.credit-report-4u.info/ credit report http://www.mortgage-calculators-ebanking.info/ http://www.mortgage-calculators-ebanking.info/ mortgage calculator http://www.mortgage-4-u.info/ http://www.mortgage-4-u.info/ mortgage http://www.private-mortgage-insurance-ebanking.info/ http://www.private-mortgage-insurance-ebanking.info/ private mortgage http://www.student-loans-ebanking.info/ http://www.student-loans-ebanking.info/ student loans http://www.personal-loan-ebanking.info/ http://www.personal-loan-ebanking.info/ personal loans http://www.loans-4-u.info/ http://www.loans-4-u.info/ loans http://www.health-insurancedeals-4u.info/ http://www.health-insurancedeals-4u.info/ health insurance http://www.auto-insurancedeals-4u.info/ http://www.auto-insurancedeals-4u.info/ auto insurance http://www.car-insurancedeals-4u.info/ http://www.car-insurancedeals-4u.info/ car insurance http://www.insurancedeals-4u.info/ http://www.insurancedeals-4u.info/ insurance http://www.insurance-quotesdeals-4u.info/ http://www.insurance-quotesdeals-4u.info/ insurance quotes http://www.credit-card-applications-4u.info/ http://www.credit-card-applications-4u.info/ credit cards http://www.hotelse-site.info/ http://www.hotelse-site.info/ hotels http://www.hotele-site.info/ http://www.hotele-site.info/ hotels.com http://www.las-vegas-hotels-e-site.info/ http://www.las-vegas-hotels-e-site.info/ las vegas hotels http://www.cheap-hotels-e-site.info/ http://www.cheap-hotels-e-site.info/ cheap hotels http://www.hotel-dealse-site.info/ http://www.hotel-dealse-site.info/ hotel http://www.travel-e-site.info/ http://www.travel-e-site.info/ travel http://www.top-e-site.info/ http://www.top-e-site.info/ travelocity http://www.air-travel-e-site.info/ http://www.air-travel-e-site.info/ air travel http://www.great-e-site.info/ http://www.great-e-site.info/ hilton http://www.car-rental-e-site.info/ http://www.car-rental-e-site.info/ car rental http://www.car-rentals-e-site.info/ http://www.car-rentals-e-site.info/ car rentals http://www.rental-car-e-site.info/ http://www.rental-car-e-site.info/ rental cars http://www.deal-e-site.info/ http://www.deal-e-site.info/ expedia http://www.dating-e-site.info/ http://www.dating-e-site.info/ dating http://www.online-dating-e-site.info/ http://www.online-dating-e-site.info/ online dating http://www.dating-services-e-site.info/ http://www.dating-services-e-site.info/ dating services http://www.dating-site-e-site.info/ http://www.dating-site-e-site.info/ adult dating http://www.adult-dvd-top-shop.info/ http://www.adult-dvd-top-shop.info/ adult dvd http://www.dvd-top-shop.info/ http://www.dvd-top-shop.info/ dvd http://www.digital-camera-esite.info/ http://www.digital-camera-esite.info/ digital camera http://www.digital-cameras-esite.info/ http://www.digital-cameras-esite.info/ digital cameras http://www.golf-e-course.info/ http://www.golf-e-course.info/ golf http://www.golf-clubs-e-course.info/ http://www.golf-clubs-e-course.info/ golf club ...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245