Lt. Gov Grunge
Peter Bagge | November 21, 2003, 3:40am
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.
thoreau | November 22, 2003, 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.
thoreau | November 23, 2003, 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.
