"What's the job of the candidate in this world? The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is stunningly dangerous." - Newt Gingrich
"Would some change-minded candidate or other kindly inform the American people what this business amounts to? Change what into what? "- William Murchison
I’m not a candidate for anything, but one change I believe we should make is to change the House of Representatives into a legislative body that more effectively represents the will of the people. To this end, I propose a constitutional amendment providing for proportional representation in the House of Representatives.
Under the present system each state is divided into congressional districts and voters elect a single representative from their district. With proportional representation voters nationwide would each cast a vote for a political party and its slate of candidates. Political parties would nominate ordered lists of candidates pledged to support that party’s platform. Seats would be awarded to each party based on its percentage of the total number of votes cast nation-wide.
This approach would allow candidates for, and members of, the House of Representatives to focus on participating in drafting their party’s platform. It would relieve them of the burden of raising huge amounts of money to fund individual campaigns. This, in turn, would keep them from becoming indebted to special interest groups. Reducing the influence of special interests would go a long way toward improving the approval ratings of Congress and would begin to restore our faith in government.
If this amendment were to pass, the real action for members of the House of Representatives would take place during the run-up to each party’s convention and the convention itself, as they engaged in serious discussions of which issues should be included in the party platform and how each issue should be addressed. While it would be up to each party to determine just how strong of a commitment its candidates would be expected to make with regard to supporting the party platform, members of the party gaining a majority of the seats in the House would logically be expected (by voters as well as the party) to support their party’s platform.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I've seen some suggestions like this before, but there are some fundamental problems in what you're suggesting.
First off, it totally violates the concept of federalism and the idea that the states reserve certain rights and powers under our system of government. You're going to have to do a lot more to the Constitution than just amend the 12th Amendment to make this work.
Second, one of the biggest problems we have right now is our entrenched party system. What you're proposing would give MORE power to the national parties and take it away from local parties and grassroots movements, because ultimately the national party organization would play a determining role in picking who would be on their slate of 'approved' candidates. It would be a huge boom for party insiders and bar those without connections from major public office.
Third, proportional representation was SPECIFICALLY one of the primary causes of the American Revolution. It was exactly the kind of governmental system which our founding fathers rebelled against and for a very good reason. Under such a system every representative is supposed to represent every voter equally, but the truth is that none of the representatives are specifically answerable to anyone but their party. Under British rule we were told that because of proportional representation every Member of Parliament represented every citizen, including those in America, but the truth is that their interest lay with the factions in Britain and they didn't give a rat's ass about America. Our current system has the great value of making representaitves directly responsible to the people who put them in office. That would be a terrible thing to lose.
There's more, but unless you can address these three concerns this whole idea is a non-starter.
You might want to think about a reform moving towards a parliamentary system like they now have in England. They moved away from proportional representation for the same reasons we did, but kept some of the other positive aspects of their system.
Dave
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Under such a system every representative is supposed to represent every voter equally, but the truth is that none of the representatives are specifically answerable to anyone but their party.
Dave has this on the money. A proportional representation system for the entire House would eventually result in central committees in political parties controlling the representatives by determining who is #1 #2. #3, etc. on the party list of 435 candidates to be elected. Anybody in the #250 spot has only a dicey chance of being elected at all.
This is the precise situation in Israel, and was the precise situation in pre-war Poland (the system that the Israelis copied when drawing the rules for the Zionist Executive in the 1930's and later the Knesset).
Trust me, you do not want any government that resembles the system here.
If you want any structural change at all, you might want to go for a plural executive (as is found in Switzerland or Uruguay) or a parliamentary system, as is found in Canada.
3 - troll
*...one change I believe we should make is to change the House of Representatives into a legislative body that more effectively represents the will of the people.*
why - ?
furthermore: as a federation this 'will of the people' is supposed to emerge through the interplay of local interests in the back rooms of congress
what's the point of shifting the emphasis (and influence peddling) to the back rooms of the national parties - ?
4 - Winston Apple
Dave, let me take your objections in order. To begin with, “federalism” is a political system in which powers are divided between a national government and state governments. To say that my proposal “totally violates the concept of federalism” infers that it would shift some specific powers from the states to the national government. My proposal does not do that, it merely provides for one half of one branch of the national government to represent the people of the nation as a whole.
I believe the national government has already usurped far too much power from the states. The “elastic clause” of the Constitution has been stretched well beyond the breaking point as the national government has taken on all sorts of powers that go well beyond being “necessary and proper” (pork barrel spending and “No Child Left Behind” come immediately to mind). While my proposal doesn’t do anything to address that issue in any way, it likewise doesn’t do anything to make matters worse in that regard.
Secondly, I agree completely that our entrenched party system is a major problem. Specifically, I believe that a two party system where both parties are largely controlled by corporate/special interests because of the need to raise mountains of cash to finance election campaigns is the primary reason for the reluctance of our national government to address issues like health care or immigration in any meaningful way.
As far as giving more power to “national” parties and taking power away from local parties and grassroots movements, I would point out that both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are ”national” parties. They have members and offices throughout the country. How many seats in Congress do they hold? Under my proposal it would be far more likely that these parties, and grassroots organizations supporting them, could win seats in Congress.
In the late nineteenth century third parties played an important role in our political system. This proposal opens up the possibility that they could play a larger role again.
The two major parties (jointly) can’t gain any more seats between them than they already have. My proposal would focus more attention on party platforms and make it easier for voters to hold the party with a majority in the House accountable if they failed to make a good faith effort to promote their published agenda.
I agree that party insiders could potentially benefit from this proposal. I emphasize “potentially.” It would be up to each party to determine how its ordered list of candidates is selected. Some parties might have rules that would give insiders more power, others might see the benefit in opening up the process.
With regard to your third objection, the rallying cry of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation.” The colonists were not represented in Parliament.
I agree that under our current system representatives are “directly responsible to the people who put them in office.” The problem is the people who put them in office are the lobbyists and special interest groups who supply the money (or more accurately,legalized bribes) needed to fund the ad campaigns that pass for elections. The candidate who raises the most money wins about 80% of the time and in most of the other cases, the winner still raised a hell of a lot of money.
The undue influence of the monied interests would be a wonderful thing to lose. Making our government more democratic by making the House of Representatives more responsive to voters would be a wonderful thing to gain.
5 - Bob Richard
I'm in complete agreement on the advantages of proportional representation. This is a great post. I will just add two thoughts.
(1) The Constitution does not prevent the states from using PR for their Congressional delegations. There's a law on the books from 1967 that needs to be repealed, but that's the only legal hurdle. There is a limitation, though, because several states only have one seat in the House. They would not be able to participate in a state-by-state shift to PR. And in states with only 2 or 3 seats, the degree of proportionality would be quite limited.
(2) You suggest working for PR at the state as well as federal level. Actually, it's best to start with local government. As the response from Dave and other commenters above suggests, PR is considered a very radical idea in the U.S. (ironically, since it was first proposed in Europe by conservatives worried about the growing size and power of the working class). People need experience with how it works, and that can be gained in cities and counties. Cambridge, MA has had PR for city government since 1940, and the voters of Davis, CA approved it in principle a year ago.
See FairVote for lots of information and resources.
6 - Bob Richard
Winston has already dealt with much of Dave's response, but there are a couple of points that still need to be made.
First, PR was not invented until the 1830s, and played no role whatever in motivating the American Revolution 50 years earlier. Nor was it an available option at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
Second, the statement that under PR "every representative is supposed to represent every voter equally" is just false. The point of PR is for every representative to represent an equal number of voters -- and for every voter to have a representative s/he actually voted for. Within practical limits, of course. I'd much rather have a legislator linked to me by common views than by the accident of geography.
Ruvy mentions Israel, which is the country most cited by opponents of PR. For every Israel and Italy (the other common bogeyman) there are several Hollands, Swedens, Germanys and New Zealands that are doing just fine with PR. Many of the problems attributed to PR in places like Israel and Italy are in fact the result of how prime ministers are chosen and cabinets formed -- issues that can be addressed in their own right and don't affect presidential systems like the U.S. anyway.
Third, on political parties, there are several forms of PR, including one that doesn't require party lists at all (in fact, it works great in non-partisan city elections). It's called "choice voting" in the U.S., and is just like instant runoff voting (IRV) except that you are filling several legislative seats instead of one. This has been in use in the Republic of Ireland since 1922 or so and for the Senate in Australia since 1949.
Check out Douglas Amy's books, "Real Choices, New Voices" and "Beyond the Ballot Box" for more on the varieties of PR and how they could work in the U.S.
7 - Jim Clark
One agreement. A Nader or Duke or Libertarian party that got 5% of the vote now gets nothing. This would give them 22 seats. Those would count. This might lead to inertia (and who says THAT'S a bad thing?) as it becomes harder to get legislation passed, but the way a third party becomes more important is to have some say. Right now they are just standing on the sidelines, assured of no real part in the process. In addition, it would lead each of these parties to attract better quality candidates; if the Greens are gonna get 10 seats from the whole country, they do not have to run an attractive candidate in every district--they need 10 good national candidates.
8 - Dr Dreadful
If I recall, under the German system a party has to receive at least 5% of the vote in order to get any parliamentary seats. This prevents the Bundestag from being filled with dozens of fringe, local and single-issue parties who can't reach a consensus on anything.
As has been pointed out by other commenters, proportional representation does have some serious flaws, but if used in circumstances where its results can't cause too much damage - in local or city elections, for instance - it does have advantages. With this in mind, under the American system with its intricate checks and balances, it might actually work.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ruvy mentions Israel, which is the country most cited by opponents of PR.
You fail to recognize WHY I mention Israel. Presently, in America, you have the opportunity to control political parties from the bottom up at party caucuses, as is done in Minnesota and Iowa. These caucuses operate on the precinct level, state legislative district level and congressional district level before moving to the state level. In Minnesota, the best way to prevent moneyed interests from taking over the political parties is for members of the political parties to attend the precinct caucuses en masse. The fewer people attending a precinct caucus, the easier they are to buy off. In addition, under this system, issues at all levels of government do get addressed.
In Israel, you have central committees running parties. In the Likud, to which I belong, there are elections for the central committee, and factions run in these elections. I belong to the Jewish Leadership faction of the Likud party, and in Likud central committee elections, or elections for the head of the party, I vote with the faction I favor. But these are national elections. Issues peculiar to Jerusalem, where I used to live, or to "Maté Binyamín", where I live now, are not dealt with. So the local issues that bring most people out to vote, are never even addressed by the political parties. Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of alienation. This alienation is one reason that schmucks and traitors like Olmert are able to hang on to power, when in any other parliamentary democracy, they would have been forced out of power for sheer incompetence.
The proposal in the article would necessitate the creation of national central committees which would then draw the candidate lists. And in these elections, the local issues that bring people out to vote, everything from potholes to streetlights to garbage collection and local education would all be ignored. The big enchilada would be The List, the list of candidates for the House of Representatives. That would be the only issue. So Americans would be even more alienated from the processes of democracy than they are already. The 2,000 county governments, the townships and all the other units that have made democracy viable in the United States would all be treated like they were not worth thinking about, and the mainstream media, whores at best, would be even bigger whores. Finally consider the structure of the governance of the House of Representatives under such a system. This is important because the governance of the House determines how laws get passed. I shudder to think of the abuses a system of proportional representation, and the national central committees it would necessitate, would entail.
The final result would be a dictator for a president who would manage to pick in one way or another, a large proportion of the members of the central committee in his own party, and a House of Representatives that would be worse and less powerful than the Reichstag, the lower house of Imperial Germany a century ago. You could forget democracy in America. The moneyed interests, the oil and banking establishment, would sew up such a system so tight that it would collapse under a civil war and a revolution to get rid of the tyranny that greed would impose on the American people.
10 - bliffle
Why not take on an easier reform first? Like, get rid of the senate entirely. It's just a carbunkle on the ass of progress as near as I can see. And talk about unfair! Every senator from Wyoming has as much senatorial power as one from California who represents 60 times as many citizens!
11 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, right on, Ruvy. All those terrible dictatorships in Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand... I mean, you can't fart in those places without getting a knock on the door from the men in long black leather coats. What is Winston thinking? Sheesh.
12 - Silver Surfer
I have a simple solution to all of America's woes.
Do away with the Prez, get someone to call Liz at Buck House and ask if you can return to the fold, and get yourselves a constitutional monarchy.
Replace the Prez with Her Maj on the executive branch, as she has virtually no power and MUST do what the Government wants.
Keep Congress and the Senate, but introduce proportional representation under a parliamentary system, and have compulsory voting and an election for Congress every three years and a half-senate election at the same time, unencumbered by all this primaries nonsense.
Then, just to keep sweet with Liz, get rid of them stars in the corner of your flag and whack a Union Jack in there.
Voila ... genuine democracy, proper freedom, no president acting without permision of the legislature ... plus, you also get a proper flag in the process.
How good is that?? You can't lose.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Clav's having a fit on one of the other threads about this attitude of yours, Stan. Think he's seen the light...
;-)
14 - Clavos
He's a paid Limey agitator, I tell ya!!
15 - STM
I used to live in Milner Ave, as I explained before, which is kind of spooky. It obviously means that I'm a member of the Milner Group ...
It must be subliminal stuff, though, how they get you in because I never realised it before - and now it's too late.
16 - Bob Richard
Ruvy writes, The proposal in the article would necessitate the creation of national central committees which would then draw the candidate lists.
PR doesn't have to be this way. Even with party list PR, a party could choose its candidates in an open convention with elected delegates. More to Ruvy's point, parties could be required to nominate their lists this way. And then there's choice voting (called Single Transferable Vote everywhere except the U.S.), the non-partisan method of PR. It's completely candidate-centered.
17 - STM
Ruvy: "With regard to your third objection, the rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation." The colonists were not represented in Parliament."
Geez, that's a piss-poor reason for a revolution.
There is a myth that Americans were oppressed at the time, but it couldn't have been further from the truth - and they also enjoyed probably one of the best standards of living in the world at the time.
No, the American revolution was more about enabling powerful men to hang on to their power structure and their wealth and influence than it was about "freedom".
I still believe it had a lot to do with Justice Mansfield's 1772 King's Bench ruling against the keeping of slaves and the growing abolitionist movement in Britain.
It seems to me far too much of a coincidence that it was barely a few years after that ruling that the ice-cream hit the fan in the colonies, and it's worth noting that the person most affected by Mansfield's judgment was a Virginian slave owner.
If it wasn't, the founding fathers (some of whom HAD acquired their wealth through slaves) could simply have continued agitating for home rule, which doubtless would have been granted eventually and which would have cost a lot less lives.
It was more about the above than a threepenny tax on a pound of tea. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan, what are you drinking? Dave wrote, the rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation." The colonists were not represented in Parliament," and the the author of this ridiculous proposal, answered him.
I never defended the revolution. In the end, though, not revolting and ditching the colonial regimes, would have led to a revolution anyway.
19 - STM
Of sorts ...
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bob Richard,
You entirely miss my point here. The elections for the central committees in Israel are national elections, and your proposed primary would have to be a national primary as well.
What makes American democracy work (to the degree it does actually work) is the emphasis on bottom up control and local issues. The minute you get to the level of the state legislature, you start running into the local agents of the oil and banking establishment that runs the country.
Winston's proposals do not deal at all with the real problems of control by the oil and banking establishment. Shuffling the deck by making what amount to cosmetic changes in the government (of any kind) will not deal with the issues of concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, or the real system of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor on which America operates.
21 - Winston Apple
Ruvy,
You said in your second comment on my post that:
“The final result would be a dictator for a president who would manage to pick in one way or another, a large proportion of the members of the central committee in his own party, and a House of Representatives that would be worse and less powerful than the Reichstag, the lower house of Imperial Germany a century ago. You could forget democracy in America. The moneyed interests, the oil and banking establishment, would sew up such a system so tight that it would collapse under a civil war and a revolution to get rid of the tyranny that greed would impose on the American people.”
In your most recent comment you describe my “ridiculous proposal” as “(s)huffling the deck by making what amount to cosmetic changes.” It’s hard to imagine the consequences being so severe if my proposal amounts to nothing more than “cosmetic changes.”
I also disagree with your assessment that “What makes American democracy work (to the degree it does actually work) is the emphasis on bottom up control and local issues.” The national government gathers up a huge percentage of the taxes paid by Americans and doles a much smaller percentage back out to state and local governments in the form of grants and “earmarks.” A great deal of apathy with regard to elections here can be attributed to the feelings of powerlessness shared by many potential voters. (Not exactly “bottom up control.”)
The oil and banking establishment is well represented in government at the national level of our government (as well as at the state level, as you point out). Our long history of pseudo democratic government has given us the opportunity to fight “a revolution to get rid of (this) tyranny . . . (and) greed with ballots instead of bullets.
I’m sorry that political parties in your country have made such a mess of things. I believe things would turn out differently here, if we amend the Constitution to provide for proportional representation in the House of Representatives.
I don’t consider my proposal to be “ridiculous” in any way. It is a serious suggestion for making our elected representatives more responsive to the will of the people and further refining our democracy as we continue the “noble experiment” that began with the American Revolution.
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Winston,
We'll let the comments editor clean up the double posting. You may have had trouble with the "co-comment" thingy that occasionally messes up. I know that I have often enough.
The gist of my posts is that in any given "democracy", the surest way to insure its efficient functioning is to provide for local control particularly of funding, so that local issues, the ones that matter to people the most, are dealt with in an intelligent manner.
In addition, the closer the institution is to local issues, the more likely the citizen is to want to participate at all. To the degree that democracy still works at all in your country, it works at the local level. That is over two decades of experience talking, in both major political parties. Your proposal ignores this entirely, and would result in a national system that would alienate voters by being far away from them. Thus it would result in the "house of mirrors" that was the Reichstag in Imperial Germany a century ago, and yet amount to nothing more than a mere cosmetic change.
Proportional representation is a nice concept, and the ideal solution would be to have a House of Representatives of 550 members, with 450 constituent districts to represent constituencies, and 100 elected in some fashion on a proportional representation basis. Thus the advantages of the present system of local accountability are preserved, along with the opportunity for smaller parties to get a share of the vote.
But such cosmetic changes do not deal with the real problem your nation faces, a concentration of wealth that is obscene, and a concentration of power that only corrupts.
That requires far-reaching change that, in the end, may require re-rigging the country altogether - a process that may well require bullets, rather than ballots. The oil and banking establishment will not give up its power unless it is compelled to.
23 - Winston Apple
Ruvy,
It seems clear from your most recent comment that we are in agreement with regard to ends and differ less than you might think with regard to means.
I agree with you (and with Thomas Jefferson) that democracy works best when it is closest to the people. You say that my “proposal . . . would result in a national system that would alienate voters by being far away from them.” A lot of voters in America feel pretty alienated. The approval ratings for both Congress and President Bush indicate how close to Washington, D. C. most voters feel.
Furthermore, we already have a “national system.” While we may technically still operate under a federal system, the powers of state and local governments have steadily eroded having been largely usurped by the national government. I understand completely that this particular proposal of mine does nothing to shift power from the national government to state and local governments. (A reform I strongly support.) On the other hand, I don’t believe it does anything to make matters worse in that regard. No POWERS would be shifted to the national government.
I agree with you that “the surest way to insure (the) efficient functioning (of a democracy) is to provide for local control particularly of funding.” Shifting power (and the percentage of total tax receipts) from the national to state and local governments needs to happen, but I that is a separate issue.
I disagree that “ local issues” are “the ones that matter to people the most.” Speaking for myself (although I believe a lot of my fellow Americans agree with me on this), I have very little interest in city government. I like to see potholes repaired promptly. I want effective police and fire departments. I enjoy easy access to safe drinking water. And maybe I’ve been spoiled by the fact that we have those things in Independence, Missouri. Life is very easy and pleasant in my neighborhood. I play my piano. I play with my grandchildren. I go for bike rides at a scenic trail that runs along a river not far from my house.
My interest in national and international issues sometimes causes my frustration level to rise. I am embarrassed when my country bullies and threatens other nations, acts like a bull in a china shop with regard to foreign policy, and refuses to acknowledge that global warming is even a problem, let alone do anything about it. I look on, feeling helpless, as health insurance companies buy policies (via campaign contributions) to insure that they can continue to pillage and plunder the health care industry. I try to avoid thinking about Cheney, Halliburton, the oil companies . . . . And when I start feeling really upset - I play my piano, I play with my grandchildren, I go for a bike ride.
I’m pleased that you agree with me that “(p)roportional representation is a nice concept.” Your “ideal solution would be to have a House of Representatives of 550 members, with 450 constituent districts to represent constituencies, and 100 elected in some fashion on a proportional representation basis.” My proposal would result in a Congress of 535 members with 100 senators representing constituent districts (states) and 435 elected on a proportional basis. It seems we are not that far apart after all.
With “local accountability . . . preserved, along with the opportunity for smaller parties to get a share of the vote” we might have a better chance to focus campaigns for national offices on issues instead of personalities, neatly packaged by consultants.
We also agree that “the real problem (America) faces (is) a concentration of wealth that is obscene, and a concentration of power that only corrupts.” A good first step in addressing those problems would be to starve the beast by enabling legislators to get elected without needing millions of dollars from special interests to pay for television ads. With the Libertarian party and the Green Party having the opportunity to hold seats in Congress (and state legislatures), gaining exposure for their party platforms in the process, our chances of compelling the “oil and banking establishment (to) give up its power” would be significantly improved. If the major parties failed to act responsibly, one of these “fringe” parties might find itself transformed into a major party.
24 - Bob Richard
ruvy: You entirely miss my point here. The elections for the central committees in Israel are national elections, and your proposed primary would have to be a national primary as well.
What makes American democracy work (to the degree it does actually work) is the emphasis on bottom up control and local issues.
OK, I missed your (main) point. Now I have a new problem. What does PR, FPTP, or any other electoral system at the national level have to do with the importance and vitality, or lack thereof, of local government?
I grant that national PR would not solve the problems of local government. But PR for city councils and county boards might help. The relative importance of different levels of government seems like a separate problem, and separate discussion, to me.
25 - Baronius
Winston, what would your proposal do about a Gary Condit? How would the voters be able to intervene when they liked a policy but not a candidate? For that matter, how would they be able to support a candidate whose priorities and shades of policy detail match theirs? Where is the place for leadership?
I'll tell you two policies I'd support, or at least consider. For the Senate, we should drop the 17th Amendment. Put the Senators back on the leash of the state houses, and make them more compliant to the state's interests over the federal. On the House side, we should greatly increase the number of districts. A thousand congressmen would encourage the inertia Jim wants and the greater accountability I'm looking for.
Would you support either proposal?