<BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3217fe6b-4adb-4b26-8001-a189ab17f4c6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I wonder why it could not be sensible and feasible, and wise, to also
> expand
> the Senate to 200 [ 4 per state ] or thereabouts, as well as using a
> pro****tional voting system vs first past the post.
As with "pure" democracy it would be unmanageable. We probably would
do better by _decreasing_ the number of congressmen.
> It would break the back
> of the Two party system and allow a more democratically accurate
> representative mix of people in the senate.
How?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro****tional representation does have some history in the United States.
Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils
as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office.
In
Cincinnati, Ohio, pro****tional representation was adopted in 1925 to get
rid
of a Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully
overturned pro****tional representation in 1957. With pro****tional
representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial
minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was
ironically
a key argument opponents of pro****tional representation used in their
campaigns - "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral
politics.[citation needed] From 1870 to 1980, the State of Illinois used a
semi-pro****tional system of ***ulative voting to elect its State House of
Representatives. Each district across the state elected both Republicans
and
Democrats year-after-year. While most jurisdictions no longer use
pro****tional representation, it is still used in Cambridge, Massachusetts
and Peoria, Illinois. San Francisco did not have pro****tional elections;
rather it had city-wide elections where people would cast votes for five
or
six candidates simultaneously, delivering some of the benefits of
pro****tional representation, but not all. A comparison [1] between San
Francisco and Rotterdam shows how emancipation and access are more
entrenched in district elections.
also...
Various forms of pro****tional representation exist, such as party-list
pro****tional representation, where the above-mentioned groups correspond
directly with candidate lists as usually given by political parties.
Within
this form a further distinction can be made depending on whether or not a
voter can influence the election of candidates within a party list (open
list and closed list respectively). Another kind of electoral system
covered
with the term pro****tional representation is the single transferable vote
(STV), which, in turn, does not depend on the existence of political
parties
(and where the above-mentioned "measure of grouping" is entirely left up
to
the voters themselves). Elections for the Australian Senate use what is
referred to as above-the-line voting where candidates belonging to
registered political parties are grouped together on the ballot paper with
the voter provided with the option of "group voting" a semi-open party
list/individual candidate system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro****tional_representation
-------------------------------------------------
The Senate is the upper of the two houses of the Parliament of Australia.
The lower house is known as the House of Representatives. Senators,
popularly elected under a system of pro****tional representation, serve
terms
of six years.[2] Significant power is conferred upon the Senate by the
Australian Constitution, including the capacity to block legislation
initiated by the government in the House of Representatives, making it a
distinctive hybrid of British Westminster bicameralism and an American
separation of powers.
....... reflected the desire of the Constitution's authors to have the
upper
house act as a 'stabilising' influence on the expression of popular
democracy (much as the colonial Legislative Councils functioned as at the
time). The smaller states also desired strong powers for the Senate as a
way
of ensuring that the interests of more populous states as represented in
the
House of Representatives did not totally dominate the government.
Voting system
The voting system for the Senate has changed twice since it was created.
The
original arrangement involved a first past the post block voting
mechanism.
This was replaced in 1919 by preferential block voting. Block voting
tended
to grant landslide majorities and even "wipe-outs" very easily. In 1946,
the
Australian Labor Party government won 33 out of the 36 Senate seats. In
1948, partially in response to this extreme situation, pro****tional
representation became the method for electing the Senate.
The "Unrepresentative" House?
As a body intended to provide equal representation to smaller states, the
Senate (like many upper houses) necessarily does not adhere to the
principle
of "one vote one value"; Tasmania, with a population of 450,000, elects
the
same number of Senators as New South Wales, which has a population of 6
million. Perhaps because of this imbalance, Prime Minister Paul Keating
famously referred to the Senate's members as "unrepresentative swill".[6]
Nevertheless, the pro****tional election system within each state ensures
that the Senate incor****ates more political diversity than the lower
house,
which is basically a two party body. The elected member****p of the Senate
more closely reflects the first voting preference of the electorate as a
whole than does the composition of the House of Representatives, despite
the
large discrepencies from state to state in the ratio of voters to
Senators.[7][8] This often means that the composition of the Senate is
different to that of the House of Representatives, contributing to the
Senate's function as a house of review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate
-----------------
and The senate and pro****tional representation: public policy
justifications
of minority representation
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41940
-----------------------
This info and other links should provide enough info, but if you need
something "decoded" into common language feel free to ask.
Basically it means that using the above senate system, smaller parties
that
do have significant sup****t in the electorate say 10% or more, are able to
get a seat in the senate for their state. Under other systems they would
not, therefore the senate becomes more representative of the overall
electorates feelings on politics/issues.
Here 6 senators are elected for each state, so op****tunities for minor
parties winning a seat is higher, than if there was only two seats each.
So the govt party might win 3 seats, the opposition 2 seats, and the
Greens
or other minor party 1 seat in a given state. In the USA system currently,
you are guaranteed that you'll usually get 1 repub, and 1 democrat, OR 2
repugs, OR 2 dems in each state. That is WHY, and how the 2 party system
maintains it grip on power, and the direction of debates and committee
investigations.
IF for example your senate had 90 repubs, and 90 democrats, and 20
senators
of other parties or strong Independents, then the only way either main
party
could Win a vote on a "highly partisan issue" would be with the sup****t of
the minor parties .... those minor parties would then vote on Issues
individually, VS primarily along partisan ideology and lobbying efforts.
A third party, or a a third party plus independents has held the balance
of
power in the australian senate over the TWO major parties for over 40
years,
excpet for the last Parliment [ where the rot set in because the Govt
parties, had a clear majority in the senate many "laws" were passed
without
due review, or "balance" ... ie RUSHED thru without serious debate or
investigations.
Many of the laws that were passed did not have the "majority sup****t" of
the
Australian people overall, but the laws got passed anyway along
"partisan.ideology" lines ........ so just like how Clinton was pushed
into
the Impeachment process along purely partisan lines in the congress.
more info below [ thx sean ]
--------------------------
ALSO this system is highly recommended, and encourages Independents and
minor parties to be able to win local congressional seats.
The Preferential system used in the lower house [ house of reps ] also
does
not use a "first past the post" is the winner system, but takes into
consideration voters "preferences" -- if their #1 choice does not gain
sufficent votes then this means votes are passed onto other candidates "in
order of preference" untill each district is left with only two candidates
..... usually referred to as "two party preferred" OR
Each electorate has between 59,000 and 120,000 voters. They are designed
to
be relatively equal across the state or territory within which the
electorate exists. Voting is by the 'preferential system' (usually
referred
to elsewhere as the instant-runoff voting).
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner
elections in which voters rank candidates in order of preference using one
ballot. No further voting rounds are required. If no candidate receives a
majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes
is
eliminated, and the votes cast for that candidate are redistributed to the
remaining candidates according to the voters' indicated preference.
At a national level IRV is used to elect the Australian House of
Representatives,[2] the President of Ireland,[3] the national parliament
of
Papua New Guinea and the Fijian House of Representatives.[4] In the United
States, it was used historically in various places, later rescinded, and,
beginning in 2004, and as of November, 2007, has been used in four local
jurisdictions, including San Francisco, California, and has been approved
by
voters in other jurisdictions, pending implementation, such as
Minneapolis,
Minnesota and Pierce County, Wa****ngton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
--------------------------------
hope that helps, sean
|
