Hi, everyone! First some announcements and reminders:
1. There will be no class on Monday, October 6, as I will be out of town on University business. However, this blog assignment is still due then.
2. Unfortunately, I will not have your exams available for return tomorrow (October 1). Issues with the curve, professor incompetence, and just the sheer volume of exams (I grade them all myself) have made this impossible. I understand this causes anxiety, and I apologize. When I next return to class (October 8), I promise you will have your exams and the first two blog grades.
3. Note also that deadlines are coming up for some of the easy points. Meeting observation papers are due October 15, and journals on the West Virginia elections are due November 10. Don't wait until the last minute to make sure to claim these easy points.
4. We will be joined by a special guest for a brief time on October 8. She will discuss some interesting internship opportunities in Charleston (for credit).
Now on to this week's assignment, It focuses on the difficulties facing third parties (sometimes called minor parties) in elections in the states. We'll concentrate in particular on the state legislature. In most states (West Virginia is a very partial exception), the state is divided into districts of equal population, each of which elects one representative. Whoever gets the most votes in a district wins that seat in the legislature. There is no prize for coming in second or third. Anyone who voted for any candidate but the winner gets no representation.
This provision is the key to why third parties have a difficult time. Voters perceive (and major party candidates encourage voters to perceive) that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, so they instead for the major party candidate whose views are closest to their own ("the lesser of two evils"). Thus, even when a third party candidate garners some early support, that support usually melts away as election day approaches.
While third party candidates face other obstacles, including the inability to attract campaign contributions, the lack of media coverage, and often being barred from candidate debates, all of those things stem from the single member plurality system. Further, there are other problems with single member plurality. For instance, having each legislator represent a particular geographic area means that representatives focus on that area and not the common good (perhaps resulting in useless government projects). Also, the drawing of the legislative lines, often done by the legislature, can be controversial and is often done to advantage the party in power at the time (the drawing of lines to favor one group over another is called gerrymandering). And, a system that encourages two parties means that each party will try to appeal to people from as much of the ideological spectrum as possible (it may not always seem that way, but, for instance, it explains Mitt Romney's move toward the center during the last months of the 2012 presidential campaign). This means that parties don't take strong stands. Finally, with just two parties winning seats, one party will always have a majority in any particular legislative body, meaning that it will control most of the power and not have to compromise with anyone else.
Many countries use a different system of representation called proportional representation. If that system were used in the US, a state with 100 seats in one house of the legislature would not be divided into districts. Rather, people in the state would vote for the party that they preferred, and seats in the legislature would be awarded in proportion to the number of votes for each party. So, if a party got 20% of the votes, it would get 20 seats in the legislative body. A party getting only 5% of the votes would still get 5 seats in the legislature. This encourages votes for third parties. They have a chance to gain representation in the legislature, show citizens what they can do, and then perhaps improve their representation the next time around. This system also removes incentives to exclude minor parties from debates and news coverage, and it encourages donors to support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whether they can win. Proportional representation also means that gerrymandering isn't a problem (there are no district lines to mess with), legislators represent everyone rather than a particular district so they don't focus on things like bringing an unnecessary new bridge to their district (and getting the whole state to pay for it), and it encourages parties to take clear stands on issues. It also results in a situation where, in most cases, no one party has a majority in the legislature, so they have to form coalitions with other parties in order to govern.
Proportional representation does have its disadvantages as well. Sometimes, geographic representation prevents an area with a minority of interests (maybe coal country) from being ignored by the rest of the state. There is no assurance that party tickets will include people from the poorest areas, so they may not get representation either. In some cases, proportional representation also encourages single interest parties, which may just be disruptive to governance. Finally, the coalitions that form are often highly unstable and dysfunctional. At least in a single member plurality system, you're likely to know who is in charge.
Here is a paper on single member plurality, proportional representation, and other related electoral systems.
http://www.lwvutah.org/Studies/Election%20Study%20final%20for%20web-site.pdf
It is from the League of Women Voters. It's got lots of detail and probably leans toward something other than single member plurality (so it's a bit biased). Your assignment is to read the paper, read my comments above, look for other arguments and evidence (there's a ton out there), and then respond. Specifically, should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections? If so, what type of system should be employed (consider proportional representation and the other systems discussed in the League of Women Voters paper)? One big issue that you'll want to consider is whether a system that encourages minor parties (like proportional representation) is a good thing or a bad thing. Be sure to use reasons and evidence in your response. Again, better responses address those of classmates (politely, of course), make original points, and bring in outside material. Comments are due by 2:00 pm on Monday, October 6.
Good luck!--NB
I think that the United States Government, as well as the state and local legislatures, should move from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government. The two-party system is outdated, and can’t accomplish anything, as we have seen in the past couple years in the federal legislature. If there was a proportional representation government, the major parties wouldn’t be able to say that the third-party candidates would be a wasted vote. Also, more third party candidates would be elected, meaning that the democrats or republicans would have to join with them, and make decisions. Third-party candidates are important in any government, because they think outside of the “boxes” of the two-party systems, and keep a balance of values and ideas.
ReplyDeleteThese candidates may lean toward the middle of some viewpoints, and therefore be able to get more things passed between the two extremes that we see now. The media would have to address every candidate, not just the major parties. Also, issues wouldn’t be so dramatic, because candidates’ view points wouldn’t be so extremely different from one another. Parties also would hold less of a majority (likely) and wouldn’t be able to just run over the other parties’ ideas as easily.
As noted in the League of Women Voters’ paper, the proportional representation system makes it very easy for minority parties to be elected. They give an example of a 10-seat body needing less than 10 percent of the vote, which would be easy (in theory). I do agree with the threshold policy that’s mentioned as being held by many countries, in which a party must have a certain percentage of votes to receive a seat. This keeps the government from being overrun with parties (Israel had almost 120 different parties).
On fairvote.org, there have been proposals made by the organization for a proportional representation plan for the US Government. They have outlined districting, populations of voters, partisan splits and voting rights for all 50 states. It’s a really interesting site that details why we should have proportional representation!
http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/congressional-elections/monopoly-politics-2014-and-the-fair-voting-solution/
Sara I agree that we should go from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government. The two-party system is outdated and has been raped of all the good it use to be used for. If more parties had a chance at gaining office then the democrats and republicans would have to compromise with these parties and change some of there own greedy ways. This would probably work for a while until they all got on the same page and was all for themselves like our government is now. Then we would need change again. This is a never ending process when something gets to corrupt we need to change somethings so lessen the "less of two evils". Politics are so deceiving and manipulating it's scary. We need change!!!
DeleteI have to agree with Sara that the United States government should consider using a proportional representation system rather than a single-member plurality. Often times during election season, we see candidates play both sides of the fence because supporting one idea or the other would cause them to lose votes. To prevent losing their seat in legislature, they will promise good things for many places. However, these promises aren't often met. By using proportional representation, smaller areas will be able to have representation even if it's a smaller number. It encourages the smaller regions to continue to vote though because they actually feel like they can get someone who will take care of their wants. Many legislators would overlook these smaller groups because they don't benefit them in any way. Nor do they make up enough votes to remove them from office, so they're not as big of a threat to the candidates office.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the League of Women Voter's paper, "One of the characteristics of PR governments is coalitions. If no party wins a majority of seats in a legislature, which frequently happens, two or more parties must form a governing coalition. In our system, in contrast, one of the two major parties always controls the legislature." Not only would this make it more difficult for legislatures to only fulfill the needs of their district, but like Sara said, it would force the two political parties to come together and progress for the common good of the voters. Rather than fighting over money for each district, legislators would be compromising to ensure that they received votes from little parts of the entire state.
George Washington predicted the turmoil that a two party system would cause a long time ago. He stated, "However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." Not necessarily did he believe that third parties would eliminate this problem altogether, but it does make a strong case for proportional representation and the idea that legislatures should be more concerned with the needs of the voters and not their personal desires. By using proportional representation, the candidate would have to focus more on the voters desires in order to have a better chance of being elected rather than "winner-takes-all." The only way to ensure that the candidate would be elected would be to please everyone within the state, rather than appealing to larger areas that can pull larger votes.
Naturally, there is a risk with any system. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Although proportional representation has disadvantages it has been used by 17 different democracies and is proved to be effective. It's possible that by switching to this system, we would see less controversy and popularity contests and more productivity for the common good of the people.
I feel mixed about every form of elections I’ve stumbled upon; at one moment I’m thinking “oh, that’s a fantastic idea!” but on the other hand, while reading the same point I find myself thinking “Oh, oh no. This cannot possibly work out.” I feel as if some sort of weird compromise is in order between plurality-majority and Proportional, I find myself generally disagreeing with semi-proportional, at least for the time being. I found myself supporting IRV elections and Proportional Votins, if we were to change our current system of voting.
ReplyDeleteOur current system is admittedly outdated, and it takes a special breed of people to make it work – perhaps a more politically educated population or a more compromising Congress – while it is outdated, it isn’t broken. Democracy by definition is a slow system of politics, which is great if something goes terribly wrong, but if something needs to be fixed… well it’ll take awhile – and our current two party system leans toward that ideology fairly well, although they seem to be slower than prescribed when it comes to fixing issues in the county. The big debate that was gone over in class, in this article, and in every other article on the internet is about other political parties. In the Proportional Election system minor parties have a larger voice and have better representation in their parliament, congress, or what have you. In our system, the two parties attempt to adopt the single issues each minor party rally behinds, and that’s just it, it’s usually a single issue. If we were to switch to a proportional election system, our minor parties would pitter out every few elections, only to be replaced by new single issue parties. How would the presidency be decided if each nomination had solid validity, have a 12 person debate when 80% of them are focused on a few emphasized issues. Maybe it’s my own bias or ignorance speaking about such matters, but I feel that system wouldn’t work out in the United States, which leaves the IRV elections.
The IRV elections keeps our current system… but it updates it to make it more viable in today’s political world. It gives minor parties more of a chance to have their voices heard, but it isn’t such a mighty roar that it disrupts the system. But what of other issues? How about Campaigning?
You could say our campaigning process today is making the other guy look bad, the worse he looks the better you look, right? Well, maybe definitionally, but it isn’t the most “moral” way to win a war. Proportional voting probably wouldn’t fix that issue, it would reduce the amount of slander in campaigns, but really solve the problem.
In the article, it stated that one of the advantages of the IRV system is that people running for office would quit slandering their opponent(s), for looking bad themselves. Posing as the second best option could very well cause them to win the majority of the votes – maybe in a way that our forefathers would have approved of? Don’t let me paint myself as someone who dives into every conspiracy, into every commoner who foul mouths politics, I just wish to generalize to help paint the bigger picture. If I had to choose, I would stay the the Plurality-Majority system, but go with the IRV elections, not what we have now.
It makes sense to use proportional system because it allows for the representation of those who have proven popular enough to rally votes among the people. To me a democracy must adhere to the needs and interests of ALL citizens and not just the ones who pull out ahead. Government should be a shared organized system of politicians who work together. However no system is without flaws. Though proportional system may allow for representation in the legislative branch, how many of those smaller groups will get to have their voices heard once congress or the senate begin to govern? I feel larger parties such as democrats or republicans will obtain larger portions of the seats and overshadow other smaller groups (like the Libertarian or Green parties) are left sitting on their hands. I feel the proportional system may be more effective in allowing for representation that cannot be accessed with the plurality system, though we don’t know if smaller parties would be able to make substantial impacts once they hold office.
ReplyDeleteI found a video that helped explain the MMP system much easier. It explains how the MMP system works in New Zealand. The video makes MMP out to be this “even a child could do it” kind of system, and it certainly looks that way. A voter can choose the party they prefer and then choose the person they want to represent them. You aren’t forced to decide between two opposing party members. The system allows you to show your support for your party and not who you dislike the least in another party.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral
The page the video is found on explains why the MMP system works so well in New Zealand. Though the page is biased, it raises some interesting points about the weakness of other governments and now New Zealand overcame those. For instance, it mentions that all upper houses (ex: US Senate) are useless while lower houses (ex: US Congress) are perfectly capable of passing and vetoing legislations on their own. New Zealand dealt with this by completely axing the upper house and letting their MMP-elected lower house run. It makes sense to me to not have the two house system with MMP because of the wide-spread representation. In the pluralist system, parties are fighting for control of both houses, while in MMP you fight to just have your voice heard.
The page then shortly goes into why monarchs are better than presidents, but that’s a debate for another day or blog.
I feel the US could manage such a system. I assume we would divide our “districts” by our states because that’s how we have been doing things for the last 200+ years. Our districts are large enough to allow for multiple coalitions to form among the seats allocated to vote winners, but just small enough so that I believe we won’t have an unstable amount of coalitions in the legislative like what Israel had.
I’ll end on this question. What happens once the politicians are elected and they begin to run the branches? What would the majority candidates do with the minority candidates who won seats? Will the power of the branch be eaten up by the majority parties and minority parties left to have whatever remains? Or will it continue to be a struggle for the majority between Democrats and Republicans while minority parties sit and watch?
Half way through writing this response my opinion about third parties and voting systems changed. I think this proves there is much more to research and learn and many aspects to consider. Also since this is the beginning of my delving into the understanding of third parties in voting systems around the world, I feel that the more I consider this topic and hear others' viewpoints the more my ideas will mold themselves differently. (Much as Richard described himself as viewing some points positively and then reading another side of the same point and seeing it differently.) For now, this is my understanding in what I believe makes sense involving third parties and voting systems in our society.
ReplyDeleteThe proportional representation system seems like the most democratic way of representing the American people. More-so than the winner-takes-all single-member plurality that excludes the smaller voices. This being said, I am wary of how well involving third parties would work. Third parties could just add complexity to an already tiresome decision-making process and any new ideas that could be offered I believe could be less likely to benefit the entirety of our country any more than ideas of the Republicans or Democrats. However, as The League of Women Voters paper and various government statistic websites I have viewed all prove that this voting system has worked in many other societies throughout the world.
The League of Women Voters paper uses the example of Israel's parties needing only one percent of the voting threshold in order to obtain seats in the government. To me this sounds extreme and entirely illogical as here in the United States we have two major parties and can hardly get anything done. But using this Israel example in an example of my own, I feel that adding third party ideas into the mix could only complicate the decision-making to an unnecessary point. If Democrats and Republicans are on opposing sides of an issue it could also be possible that a third party would have to create some less logical viewpoint for said issue for the sole purpose of being different from either of its Democrat and Republican opponents. It is true as Sara said above that Republicans and Democrats usually have opposing viewpoints and they may sometimes be extreme (I believe in order to prove their support of one point and hatred of the others'), but I also believe it is entirely possible for the two major parties to come to a compromise without said suggested compromise coming from a third party. Moreover, if these parties are all supposed to form coalitions with other parties of similar ideas then what is the point of having separate parties in the first place? If the smaller third parties end up joining up with either Democrats or Republicans in the end anyway, how effective is the new system and how different is it in the end? I also believe many third parties are too focused on one subject and while that subject may be important, politics are about working to better society in all aspects.
Overall, I believe the United States making over its political voting system would be a substantial shock to the public, but ought to be considered. As my classmates said above, the two-party system could use an update. My only concerns are how well this update would actually work. But this country was founded on principles that became in many ways the first of their kind to work in government form. And the only way to know if this approach would work would be to try.
I think state and local legislatures should move from single-member plurality to a proportional representation government. In my opinion single member plurality causes more problems than the candidates end up fixing. This "winner takes all" mentality discourages people to vote. Voter turnout ends up being very poor in these elections because they feel like their vote doesn't count, and if they vote for the candidate that doesn't win then its a wasted vote.
ReplyDeleteMoving to a proportional representation government would make the United States more up to date with many other countries. The majority of other countries use this system, so why shouldn't we? If we moved to PR it would give third parties or minor parties an actual chance to be heard and maybe win. Voter turnout would be a lot greater than it currently is. People would feel that their vote really matters because it wouldn't just be one candidate winning. Also with PR it is proven that since there is a wide range of candidate and woman or minority is more likely to get elected than in a single member plurality.
There are many different forms of PR, they mainly all have the same ideas and I think are much better than single member plurality. The most commonly used form according to http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/what-is-proportional-representation-and-its-benefits-politics-essay.php, is List PR.
The voter selects one party and its of candidates to represent them. Party slates can be either “closed” or “open,” allowing voters to indicate a preference for individual candidates. If a party receives 30% of the vote, they receive 30% of the seats in the legislature, 10% of the vote receives 10% of the seats, and so on. This type of PR is best used for large legislatures for state and national levels.
PR would definitely be a change for the United States and I think it would be a good thing but it would be different. Single member plurality is how the government has always worked in the United States so for it to just change would definitely take some getting use to and we may find that single member plurality is the best for our country. But we will never know until we test it out. I think states should start using this more for their elections and then see how it works and if it seems to work out more they should try to integrate it more into larger government elections.
Although I agree with you that a proportional representation would allow a third party a voice in government. I don't believe it would allow the government to run more smoothly. Yes proportional representation may be a more accurate way to measure public opinion but that doesn't help when running a government. Jacob Long is right in an ideal world proportional representation would work great. However in the real world legislative gridlock would be a constant battle. Its already hard enough to get two parties to sit down and agree on something adding more would just make it worse. You could get nothing done no one would agree on anything. Also it allows for the creation of extremist parties which is never a good thing. Also the party system in itself becomes weaker with support spread through many parties and yes a lot of countries have adopted the system but it doesn't always work out Italy had issues for years with the system and had to continuously shut down the government. So Single -member is the lesser of two evils.
DeleteI have to agree with jordan here that adding more sides to a problem will not fix said problem. While the idea of proportional representation looks a ppealing, in a country where weve had a two party system since its founding over 200 years ago, switching out of a two party system will probably never happen. At local levels it has the potential to be implemented but it would take election after election to move to this type of representation.
DeleteIn this country, Single-Member is the lesser of two (or more) evils. My beliefs on whether single member and proportional representation hinges on the difference between putting them to work theoretically and in practice. When looking at it in theory, any of the proportional systems should work wonderfully. They allow third-parties the chance to campaign, fundraise, and debate with the big boys. No longer does someone who identifies with one of those parties have to vote either Democrat or Republican and sacrifice their beliefs just to support “a winner”. It would create more moderate views on issues other than the conservative and liberal views. All of these sound great and are actually arguments as to why proportional representation would work. But then you have to think about what would actually happen. First of all, there is no way to know how many parties would come crawling out of the woodwork and campaign. For some people in this country it could be an overload and just confuse them more than necessary. That may be a weak argument but it’s one that could be made. The second argument: in state and national legislatures now, how hard is it to get something done? Debates rain constantly and it causes stalemates. Contrary to Ms. Kenser’s belief, I don’t think forced coalitions are going to help any. Instead of just two groups going back and forth, now you have 3 or 4 more groups trying to be heard. I think that could be a recipe for disaster. For the final argument, (and perhaps the most arbitrary) at this point it would be a giant shock to the population of America if all of a sudden we switched election systems. I don’t think the public is ready for that switch. A switch that isn’t necessary and may not work better than what we have.
ReplyDeleteDouglas J. Amy wrote “How Proportional Representation Would Finally Solve Our Redistricting and Gerrymandering Problems”https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm. Government corruption has used media to influence the American public to believe they are in control of elections. They encourage us to vote because if we don’t we are not engaging in what happens in our states or country. The truth is they already have everything thought out years in advance. Our government is actually puppets for who truly runs our nation, people with money and power set back and dictate what goes on. I don’t complete blame Obama for all the stuff going on in our nation because other people control him. No wonder people says that he sets back and gets drunk and smokes crack. If I was Obama I probably would too. I think we should move from single member plurality to proportional representation because it would help our voters to actually have a say in who gets elected, the government wouldn’t have as much control on who gets voted in. Although, I’m sure they would find a way to corrupt that too. The love of money and power is the root to all evil and our country is full of it and it goes against everything our founding fathers stood for. Our country becoming a proportional representation is unrealistic because the people with all the power would never let that happen. We would need to stand up against our government like other countries. Wonder what our government would do if we started to protest like that. Do you think our government would start killing people off like other countries do? If not, what do you think our government and military would do to gain order and control again? I did register to vote this year, but I doubt I exercise my right. I don’t believe our government or anything they claim they stand for. As you said in class “the lesser of two evils”. That about sums it all up. If our government become a proportional representation I would probably start to vote. Would you be more likely to vote if our government used a different form of electoral system.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Amber on how the government works. I do not vote because I'm not truly convinced that all Americans opinions are taken into concern. I believe that money is the issue and the government only takes that into consideration, that way the get funded. If we had a system like some countries where things were by votes I might vote
DeleteI agree with the majority of my classmate's comments. A proportional voting system has the chance to be more beneficial than the plurality-majority system. The plurality-majority system is used today, and it seems it discourages voter turn out. We've all heard people say that their vote doesn't matter, or how is my one vote going to help? The Leaguers article explains that if your opinion or political view point aren't popular, then you aren't represented, and are forced to pick from two polar opposite sides. Third parties are rarely elected, therefore, there is never a middle ground. Decisions are either black or white. This system causes you to believe that if you don't vote for the left or the right side then it is a wasted vote. In my opinion, the best version proposed in the article for a plurality-majority system is the IRV or instant run-off voting. The up-side of IRV is that the people can vote for multiple candidates by ranking them, not having to make a one-sided decision or "waste" your vote. However, it would have to be a quick process of counting ballets and would put a lot of trust on technology.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, the proportional voting system has more up-side. Minority parities can be represented, assuming a small threshold, which would eliminate wasted votes. I agree with Whitney Kesner when she says that smaller regions would feel more eager to vote due to more likely representation. It really is important that minorities have a voice in elections. Minorities today could easily become the majority in years to come. We are all American citizens under the Constitution and deserve the right to be represented equally.
With all that being said, I think that promoting a system that represents minorities would have benefits. According to Manuel Pastor's "Can You See It Now?" article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-glover-blackwell/minority-vote-2012_b_2090221.html, by 2042, people of color are expected to make up a majority of America. Therefore, successful parties will have to look beyond their white voters. Pastor proposes that those running for office will have to appeal to a new demographic, just as President Obama appealed to the Latino group as well as other minorities. We can all argue about his decisions as president, but we also can all admit that he obviously was successful when appealing to minority and majority voters.
As Renata says above, there is a lot more research that needs to be done in order to determine what system might be the most beneficial, but I really do feel that a proportional voting system could better benefit every person of our country and not just the majority.
For the four years that I have been a registered voter I have taken issue with single member plurality. It caters more to Republicans and Democrats and doesn't leave room for third party candidates to represent voters who would have preferred voting third party. I believe, as much as it it would pain the electoral system, that the U.S. should change voting systems from single member plurality.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I would like to see proportional voting be implemented. I feel like proportional voting would provide better options to each district and better representation.
Proportional voting is not without faults, though. The major problem with proportional voting is the possibility of single-issue parties winning. Single-issue parties only look to one issue. That may be important to a district and they will vote for them. If the issue is resolved the party no longer has anything to offer to it's district.
I have never entirely supported Republican or Democratic candidates and have been drawn to third party candidates. Even with it's flaws, proportional voting may work better for voters and third party candidates.
I disagree with the majority. I believe that the semi-proportional system would be the best choice. Democracy is the people controlling the decisions but under the Single Plurality System, that is not the case. Democrats and Republicans control the ballads and basically are the only two parties to choose from due to the fact that people don't feel their votes will even mean anything if they vote for the third party candidate. I read a few articles and found this the most explanatory and gave me the best idea of how it all works.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/semiproportional.htm
This shows a sketched example of how the 2 methods under the system work. One method is Cumulative Voting which is the more popular of the two, and Limited Voting. This system is not used much around the world but I feel as if this system represents the freedom of america the greatest. It gives the equal opportunity for any minority or third party to be elected into office. The voters get as many votes as there are candidates and can use them in any order such as 5 for one candidate or 1 for each of the 5 or 2 for one candidate and 3 for another etc. This gives the voters an actually say in who should be in office, they can support more than one candidate if they have different but acceptable views. One year there could be a huge majority for a third party candidate, and the next year there could be no third party candidates. This variation would help solve problems and get everyone to vote because maybe their votes will actually make a difference. Amarillo recently adopted this system and saw its first Latino and Black representatives elected in 2000 since the 1970s. Amarillo should be observed by political scientists and economists. If this system is working well there then it should be used more widely. One of the most controversial problems with this system though is that it confuses the voter, they must strategically plan how many votes they will give to each candidate which to me honestly does not seem like that much of a problem, if anything it would motivate people to learn more about what they are voting for exactly. This system has its faults just like any system ever created, nothing will be perfect and problems will arise from each but there is nothing you can do about that. American should drop their current system ( most likely will never happen ) and adopt the Semi-Proportional System. This system could get candidates with out of the box and creative ideas elected. This is not always a good thing but we have been using the Singular system for so long and there are more complaints than anything. America is using this system to control us just as Amber said in the post above. They will not support or adopt any system that will challenge their control so we will stay in this Singular system even if it is not the best for the people. The Semi-Proportional system gives the people too much say in who is elected and the government has less control so they will not change. More people will come to vote if their opinion actually matters, the Semi-Proportional System should be used across the country.
I think the Single Plurality System has a lot of issues. I think it discourages voter turn out and alienates many people. As the article points out this system makes many feel as if they are wasted votes. I think this can have a big impact on voter participation and creates an attitude that their participation does not matter. Furthermore, minorities under our current system are alienated and underrepresented. Under this current voting system it makes it nearly impossible for minorities to change their status. They don't have a chance in the elections which keeps them in a state of having no power. It is a cycle which allows only the dominant members of the two party system to obtain and hold power.
ReplyDeleteProportional voting would allow more people to be represented. Obviously, there would generally still be a majority. However, those who did not belong to that majority would still have the opportunity to make their views and ideas heard. I think this would also be beneficial in the idea that more ideas could be heard on different issues.
I fully acknowledge that the proportional voting system has its issues but I think it is going to be impossible to employ a system that is without fault or problems. I think we just have to fight to figure out a system which is most democratic for everyone.
In a perfect world, the United States should move away from single member plurality elections to proportionally representative elections. The legislature has too many conflicts between parties because, being labeled a Democrat or Republican can range from liberal to conservative for members of both parties. In proportionality representative elections, every candidate would be able to be represented fairly unlike in single member plurality. Though third parties can be bad, they also provide equal representation. The only problem to this would be the fact of dozens of minor parties getting a seat. Israel has shown a good example on how to limit this by making a minimum percentage of the vote to get a seat. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and thus is why I disagree with most of my classmates. Single member plurality elections are the most feasible choice. This is because it limits the amount of candidates and consolidates the choices.
ReplyDeleteThe United States election system is one of the most argued topics in politics and has been argued since our government was created. The plurality system works on a national level and completely agree with it on a larger scale. When you look at states or localities though you need to give more representation for minorities. On these smaller scale stages I believe we should use the alternative vote. The alternative vote is a system where you rate the candidates from favorite to least favorite.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative vote explanation is that the candidate that received the least amount of votes is eliminated and the next person on their ballot receives the vote and so on and so forth, this method is otherwise known as the instant run off voting method. This voting method allows for the candidate that was on average closest to number one on the ballots to receive the seat so third parties may be elected in the end.
With this method there would be no party that would get too powerful. It would actually almost totally get rid of parties at the local and state level because people would now be focused on the candidate 100% instead of party affiliation. I truly believe this method would get rid of people complaining about how elections are not fair for third parties and would give more people the opportunity to get involved in politics.
I do believe the US Government should stray away from single member plurality and focus more on proportional representation. Although this form of government may come with a few flaws, such as much more representation in the house and people just voting for the candidate they prefer. Third parties can be messy, dealing with interest groups and lack of media coverage. The third party candidate confused voters and it isn't so cut and dry as democrats and republicans. It is also hard to try to convince government officials to vote to have a independent third party to have control of the majority, as in not democratic or republican. All form of governments have their flaws, obviously Ireland can function well enough and have a third party win majority of their elections. I guess it all depends of the culture and structure of a nation. Not one way of political hierarchy is the same for every country, obviously because not all countries have kings and queens. No matter what political party is in charge or how a government is ran will matter if there is not strong backbone to a nation. Although proportional representation is flawed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be the right choice.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention other forms of government in other countries. Not every country can run efficiently with the same type of government. Some places might need a different form of government than another because of the way people think. All places are different, so I like how you mention other countries in this because it gives more evidence that one thing could work at one point, but might not work at another point.
DeleteWhen it comes down to the argument of sticking with the single member plurality system vs moving into a proportional representation system I would support the latter. There are so many reasons why having a proportional rep. system would work more efficiently. First off, we are one of the few developed countries, according to the article, that does not utilize this system. I like it because it gives voters more of a voice and represents a bigger bulk of the population, unlike the single member plurality system where "wasted votes" are extremely commonplace, unfortunately. The essay discusses the fact that countries that do not use the single member system have a far bigger voter turnout, most likely because people are willing to go out and vote when they know they have a say in who will represent their opinions. As a registered independent, I strongly feel third party candidates do not get a fair chance in elections, because why vote for someone who statistically has a far less chance of actually winning...this is what leads to wasted votes. A common misconception is, in order to have a proportional representation system, we have to have a parliament, which is incorrect. As Brett mentioned in his blog post, power gets lost on the local level of the single member plurality system, and there is less representation for minorities. Having a proportional representation system could immensely improve this problem.
ReplyDeleteMajority of my classmates are responding that we should move away from the single-member plurality voting system, and somewhat switch over to the proportional representation system. People may find that this way is "fair" and best suits the people of America. Now, of course people have very different ways to look at things, and have different beliefs. I don't necessarily agree that we should move the the proportional representation system. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, in October of 2013 - 65.9 percent of high school graduates were enrolled in some sort of higher university. Leaving out a 34.1 % of high school seniors that weren't enrolled. That percentage isn't including students who have dropped out of school prior to their senior year. Although the proportional representation system would be nice for everyone, my views are going to have a very likely chance to differ from someone who chose to drop out of school or didn't go to a higher university.
ReplyDeleteI find that it is difficult for 3rd parties to make a name for themselves, so I would want some find some sort of middle ground for them. Whether that would be by geodemographic areas, and split it into percentages, but I don't agree that for each percentage that there should be so many chairs to represent them. Just like Samantha said, the proportional representation system has more of a chance to be beneficial, but with these percentages, I just don't really trust the average American. Especially someone who hasn't gone to college, and learned the ins and outs of our political system. Everyone has the right to vote, and that really is scary.
I'm not saying that people who didn't go to colleges would completely vote for someone who didn't go somewhere for a high education, but to have a seat represent some part of the percentage that they want to vote for is mind baffling.
Katelyn,
DeleteI agree with you when you talk about how you don't trust the average American. It is scary to think about everyone having the right to vote and that could give almost anyone a seat. However, I think the way we vote now is either democrat or republican, and that leaves out a wide range of views. Some citizens are discouraged from voting simply because they think that their vote doesn't matter. Also, we have no way to represent the people that have conservative views in some aspects and liberal in others.
I agree with my classmates that said they believe a proportional representation system should be used. I also agree that every system has good ideas as well as flaws, and that there will never be a system that everyone can agree on that doesn't have a single flaw. Like Samantha said, the proportional representation system would help minority parties and eliminate the wasted votes. Since the proportional representation system requires multi-member districts it allows more proportionality, and the larger the district the more proportionality there is. So, more ideas can be addressed and maybe solved. I believe that less people would pay attention to the geography and having someone get elected that is in the same/close district, and a lot more concerned with the ideas that the candidates have and the problems they want to solve. In my women and genders class we talk a lot about equity among all races, ethnicities, sexes, etc and I think this the proportional system would help achieve this status more. There would be people representing big issues for all of us. This could also be a huge risk and cause a lot of extra problems, and also make the problems with issues such as race and religion even bigger. I know a lot of people who don't vote because they don't see the point in voting and like the article says it would just be a wasted vote. I think there would be a huge voter turnout if we had a proportional representation system because it would be more appealing to voters. The single plurality system we have doesn't seem to be the best system out there. When we talked in class about voter turnout in certain states it just showed how many people don't really vote, so something obviously needs to change. The system we have doesn't even give minorities a chance to do anything really; it's either this or that. People don't vote because the ideas and issues they want to be addressed can't get addressed with just Democratic or Republican.
ReplyDeleteProportional representation has flaws, but overall I think it's more appealing to most people and voters because it gives third parties a chance to come up with ideas and resolutions to things voters want to see happen and change.
As other classmates have already stated, in a perfect world the US government should move from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government, however things could never be that simple. No matter what the system there would always be issues and people do not often like change. If we were able to implement a proportional representation government, third-party candidates would not be seen as a wasted vote. If third party candidates were able to stand a chance and be elected, this would force or democrats and republics to join with them in making certain decisions. This would definitely allow values and ideas to be exchanged between all three of the parties. It would be much more helpful for third party candidates to stand a chance in the running’s if the media would give them some attention and coverage as well. Third party candidates would likely have mixed viewpoints and this would make it so that our choices when voting for candidates weren’t so extremely different. It would definitely be helpful to have a democracy that was trying to adhere to the interests of everyone in the country. The League of Women Voters paper really allowed me to understand more on the topic of third parties and voting systems. However, it did draw some attention to issues with the proportional representation. Since we do have such a hard time as it is with just the two major parties, there is a chance that adding in a third party would definitely complicate the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do like the idea of proportional representation more than single-member plurality, I am aware that change is a very difficult thing and that no matter how great a system sounds there are still going to be issues. Instead of completely changing out voting system and shocking the public completely, maybe some sort of update to the current system should be implemented.
I also checked out this website that Danielle posted, http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/what-is-proportional-representation-and-its-benefits-politics-essay.php and read up about List PR. It does seem to be working relatively well and going smoothly. Giving voters more options and third parties more of a chance should definitely benefit the US (especially large legislatures for state and national levels).
After researching more of the proportional representation idea, I completely agree with its policies and ways to improve the American voting system. I believe it would allow voters to trust their candidates more with a third option to choose from, would improve the voting system itself and clear up the "gray" area that exists in politics. For example, I happen to strongly believe and agree with gay marriage. However, I strongly disagree with abortion. If I believed in both, many would view me as a social democrat/liberal. However if I disagreed with both, I would be viewed as a social republican/conservative. According to the Huffington Post, a little over half of people believe in gay marriage. The Huffington Post also states that a little under half of the American population believes in abortion. Statistically this means that there is a great possibility of people who believe in what I do, and are included in that "gray" area.
ReplyDeleteAs stated at the beginning of the blogpost directions, it is said that if there are only 2 candidates within the voting process, it is more likely that the candidates themselves will lie and say anything to impress the voters. With this third party option, candidates will be less likely to lie and sway peoples opinions. In conclusion, not everyone is 50/50 on their voting preferences even candidates so it is only fair for the American election process to give an alternative to certain beliefs.
I like how you bring up the fact that having a third option as a candidate could make more voters feel comfortable in that they could elect someone based on their political views. Many times citizens could be a Democrat or Republican, but have a different view on one issue. If this was the case, then having a third option for a candidate could be very useful. I believe that it is not good that the candidates lie because they want to align with voters more. I like this idea a lot so that what is really being focused on are the issues and voters not just the candidates. The only problem with this is having too many parties in power and then having their power be diminished when decisions cannot be made effectively or easily.
DeleteI think that the US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections because to me it seems that there are more problems to be caused than positive things. I think that the candidate who receives the most votes should technically win, it seems that sense it is not like that it actually changes people’s votes. The candidate who receives the most votes is not necessarily the majority or the “winner-takes-all,” this seems to have really affected the way people think during the voting process and over the years has caused people to be uninterested in going out to vote.
ReplyDeleteThe type of system that I think should be employed is the proportional voting system. This system seems to be fairer and have more advantages. This system would allow for a better outcome in voters because more people would feel that their vote “counts,” or that they are voting for a purpose that their vote isn’t just a waste. If a political party wins a specific percentage of votes, than it would receive about that many seats and this would be better than the “winner-take-all” system and allows minor parties to have a better chance at being represented.
With that being said, I think that having minor parties like proportional representation is a good thing. I think that minorities never had the chance during elections and there was many disadvantages with the single member plurality legislative elections that make this system even better. The majority-plurality system didn't do a great job at representing racial and ethnic minorities which need to be better represented in my opinion. According to the “Proportional Representation Voting System” article (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm) This allows minorities to have multiple advantages such as it providing more accurate representation of parties, better representation for political and racial minorities, fewer wasted votes, higher levels of voter turnout, better representation of women, and greater likelihood of majority rule.
I do agree with Renata Di Gregorio though, about the proportional representation system being the most democratic way of representing the America people more than the winner-takes-all. Renata makes a good point in the sense that third parties could just add complexity to an already tiresome decision making process. I believe that this statement only proves that the voting system has worked in other societies and is something that could benefit us in the future as stated. Overall, I strongly believe that the US should move away from single member plurality legislative election, and to something that has many more advantages.
I strongly believe that the two party system we currently have is outdated. Our generation is full of people with mixed views, I doubt anyone can entirely agree with one party or another, as Haley mentioned many people are likely in this gray area. This creates an attitude that it's hard to vote because you don't agree with either party entirely. I happen to be one of these people and never feel confident in a candidate enough to vote for them, thus creating lower voter turnout. One of the most interesting points in the League of Women Voters papers points out that there is far less controversy and political distrust in a proportional representation, that alone puts me in favor of this electoral system. If you combine the fact that more people will vote and less controversy surrounding the government, I think this PR system is worth at least a try.
ReplyDeleteAs far at the negatives some classmates have pointed out that the PR system will increase gridlock within the government. I disagree, I think it will force parties to compromise and perhaps it will make the third party the "tie braker" forcing the parties to compromise to gain the majority. Although political gridlock is a real threat I think parties will become much more aware of it as a real issue and attempt to combat it from the beginning (wishful thinking maybe).
Realistically this would be a very dramatic change and I don't think it could be done overnight. It would need to be a slow process, a few states at a time experimentally then make a final jump to the system as a whole. Maybe there's a way for the people to vote on this issue? Ask the people what they think is the best, this is a democracy after all!
Theoretically speaking, after reading and analyzing the paper and classmates’ comments, I believe a proportional representation system produces more pros than any competing styles. Arguments have aroused opposing the proportional representation system, claiming that there are potential faults within this style of system. However, I believe these claims to be somewhat contradictory considering those critiquing proportional representation are generally in-favor of single-member plurality which has proven many faults within itself as well. The idea of a proportional representation system seems more logical for the twenty-first century. As our country grows and becomes more diverse it is ideal for smaller groups to have a voice in our government. This system promotes a more fair campaign and strays away from a black and white election where strictly a Republican or Democrat will proposer, giving third parties realistically no chance. Voters will be more engaged, generating a larger voter turnout because they will feel as if their votes now truly count. Overall the proportional representation system seems like the most appealing option, and as like Israel, limitations could be set to ensure that small groups suddenly blooming from the “woodwork” will not interfere with the quality or cleanliness of this system. However, from a realistic standpoint, Americans do not like change. A change such as this would cause major controversy to the traditional-style, patriotic American people. I think it would be a war within itself to make Americans conform to a new electoral system. Maybe this is why we have not already switched to a proportional representation system.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in the class has very valid points and beliefs to whether the United States should change the way of election from single-member to proportional representation legislative elections. With the proportional election, it would help help the third party candidates with a better chance of being in the running and a possible victory. There are many other factors that make the plurality type election seem to be better, but that doesn't mean it will for sure be better. As Breanne stated earlier, "No matter what the system there would always be issues and people do not often like change", and I totally agree with her. Just because proportional election sounds more fair and better for our states, it doesn't mean it would be what we need. There would still be problems and especially with a big change like that. All in all i don't think that the election should be changed.
ReplyDeleteCameron,
DeleteGreat points about how people don't acclimate well with change. Proportional representation would give the third party candidates a better chance to be heard and voted for, which I think would be nice because those are the people that usually are the ones that shock you with what they know and want to help. Even though I don't sway one way or the other, I feel as if this way would help most of the issues the U.S. face because there's no happy medium right now with single-member.
After reading all of my classmate's opinions on this issue, I strongly feel it would be in the United State's best interest to implement proportional voting. After reading this article, I think single plurality system has way more issues than proportional representation. For starters, single plurality system excludes both third party candidates and voters. As someone who comes from a family that does not classify themselves as democrat nor republican, I think proportional representation would make me feel more confident as a voter by making me feel like my vote matters. In addition to this, the article describes the single plurality system as making the voters feel like they are just wasted votes. I know if I thought this about my vote, I would ask myself why I am bothering to continue to vote? Realistically, if what I wanted to think had no say, I would not waste my time by thinking that way anymore. Our voting system now only focuses on the two dominant parties when it should allow other parties to be represented. With such a big and diverse generation, I think it is nearly impossible for our entire country to either side with one party or the other therefore I feel that proportional voting would best represent our country because it would provide more options to each district.
ReplyDeleteHi Molly!
DeleteYour post struck me the most because I also come from a family that has no declaring party. That is why I think the combination of two-round runoff and instant runoff would be most beneficial for those of us who do not declare a party and even those that do because the first round of voting can be without the candidates declaring a party and ranking each candidate by issues only.
Just a thought. Diversity is key in the current generation.
I would agree with many of my classmates that the single-member plurality system is rather out of date in today’s society. The proportional representation system seems to fit the culture of America today where many times people are gray on the issues rather than black or white. All too often we see candidates fence hoping on beliefs in order to gain votes in the elections (think Hilary Clinton and her definition of what marriage is throughout the years). In addition they promote empty promises such as a promise for “change” or a better tomorrow for the country – generally speaking it’s physically impossible to make such promises. With the world as varying in types of people a positive change for one group does not mean a positive change for all. Having a proportional representation system allows for the changes to be made to be for the greater good of a compact group of people therefore it should allow for the most positive change for the greatest number.
ReplyDeleteAs noted in the document from the League of Women Voters not only would changing to a proportional representation system encourage minority representation ( as they would be directly linked to a small district of people) but it also ensures geographical representation. Additionally, voter participation is extremely high in these circumstances because every person is being impacted and every voice is equally as important in the vote. Electing a candidate who understands you and your geographical location as well as your economic one is essential to creating good government officials.
Finally switching from the plurality system ensures that minority parties get a seat and therefore they have the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Truly we live in America which boasts on its equality as a nation. If we cannot allow for our citizens to be heard then we are not the nation that George Washington and so many others fought to have.
I strongly agree with you that the single-member plurality system is outdated in today's society. As the culture of America today is a rather "gray" society, I believe that over time, the plurality system would bring positive changes. Like other classmates have argued, these changes would not be over night, however it would encourage minority and geographical representation.
DeleteI tend to disagree with single member plurality legislative elections because it seems very calculated. I found an article about the topic that is in favor of proportional representation. It talks a lot about how single member plurality is basically like rigging the election. Gerrymandering also plays a big role in why I don’t think the single member plurality is fair. It’s basically like manipulating the districts for political advantage. I get that politics are corrupt, but this is on a whole different level and just gives less and less power to the voters.
ReplyDeleteLink to article: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm
-Jessica Johnson
In my opinion, I think that the United States should move away from the Single Member Plurality system and towards proportional representation. Due to the single member system, citizens are often discouraged from voting because they feel their vote doesn’t matter. In a proportional representation, every vote counts, and even if they only receive 1%, it is better than nothing. This gives third party members a chance to have a voice. Also, in a single member system, voters are voting for either liberal or conservative. These are two completely different sides of the spectrum and leaves out many people that have liberal views for some aspects and conservative for others. Also, I think that politicians will do things specifically so that they get reelected, even if it doesn’t do any good. In the proportional system, this decreases because even if they get a small percentage of votes, they will still have a seat.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. I personally have viewpoints that aren't strong liberal or strong conservative. I may sway one way more often, but it would give us as voters a better understanding what the third parties would want for us. It would also give us as voters the opportunity to place our votes on the third party that wouldn't be doing crazy things just to get reelected again.
DeleteAmber, you hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Every American should vote, feel like their vote counts and know that their vote actually counts. Every American also needs representation even if their beliefs don't fall one hundred percent under liberal or conservative. Proportional representation gives the government an opportunity to have all its citizens heard and fairly represented. I see no issue with moving away from the Single Member Plurality system.
DeleteI honestly do not know where I stand on this issue. I can see various pros and cons when it comes to staying with a single-member voting district and switching to a proportional voting system. Single-member voting is a foundation of this country. Having two major parties requires them to argue and work together to make policy, which is hard, but it works. Adding multiple parties would muddle this whole process. Proportional voting does have its perks. Minorities represented better, more choices when voting, etc. But I also feel as if proportional voting is trying to make everyone happy, and there is no circumstance with nation-wide politics that makes every single person happy. I feel as if it is better for minorities to just lump into one of the two parties, and then do things such as start interest groups, PACs, etc to influence government to better fit their needs. It is hard to say this, because I know we have problems with minorities being represented in this country, but I don't think switching to a proportional style would be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI think that the single member representation is better than the proportional representation. In the single member representation, the legislator is usually formed of two parties. The party with the most seats will be the majority and it will be responsible of making decisions. The other party will be a minority, and it will work hard to prove that the majority is not working well. This competition will motivate both parities to do their jobs the best way possible. Both parties know their not alone and they both want to be the majority on the next election.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, proportional representation is a total chaos. Often times there will not be a majority in the legislator. Without a majority of votes, united under one party, it will be so difficult to get anything done. The question on this post takes about countries that have proportional representation and I come from one. In my country, Kuwait, the legislator cannot get anything done because there isn’t a majority, which causes the government to call for re election almost every year.
In proportional representations, parties sometimes form alliances just to serve their interests; even it is against their values. They vote against their views on a bill in exchange of getting enough votes for another one. This is the only option they have under the proportional representation system.
In the US, third parties are almost nonexistent. In countries which utilize proportional representation, they have what they consider a vibrant and flourishing democracy. However, the proportional representation system comes with a variety of flaws which I feel to be unredeemable. While we do use the "Single Member Plurality" system, we also utilize a style of voting called First Past the Post. In First Past the Post voting, essentially, whoever has the most votes, wins. Some thing that the beauty of this system lies in its simplicity, there are a number of flaws that come with it. The idea of the voting for the lesser of two evils is almost institutionally built into this system.
ReplyDeleteThere is another style of calculating votes that simultaneously addresses the problems of our single member plurality system while incorporating some of the better outcomes of proportional representation. This other system of calculating votes is called Alternative Vote, or AV. In AV, you rank the candidates in the order in which you would like to see them elected. As a hypothetical example, let's say that in 2016 there are three candidates in the general election: Hillary Clinton, a Democrat; Jeb Bush, a Republican; and Bernie Sanders, a Socialist. You are a pinko lefty, and you want to see Sanders elected President. However, you know that many people are not as far left as you are, and you fear that you may be splitting the liberal vote, and giving Bush the upper hand. However, with the AV system, you are able to rank the candidates. So, you rank Sanders first, you rank Clinton second, and you do not assign a rank to Bush. Come election day, when the votes are calculated using the First Past the Post system, Bush received 47%, Clinton received 43%, and Sanders 10%. Bush is declared the winner. However, if the votes are calculated AV, once Sanders has not won, the people who selected him as their first choice then have their second choice used. The additional ten percent go to Clinton, and she wins.
The UK voted in 2011 whether or not to use the AV system, and they ultimately chose to maintain the status quo and keep First Past the Post. If the US were to implement AV, we might see a surge in the importance of third party politics, and a revitalization of our Democracy.
I would think that a single member representation would be best for the U.S. The election system is a bit confusing whom wins and how each party reaches that goal. The problem with a single member representation is that it gives all the power to one party instead of splitting it. This will also benefit the voters and the government. This is something good because you have one team working together with no others to take some of the power. This will also give the certain party more power. They might use it to get re-elected again so this would be good for the people and bad for other parties. Good for people meaning the party that wins will try its best working and trying to win the elections again. The other parties would suffer not having a voice.
ReplyDeleteIn the proportional representation it is more about a race between every party and not the common good. They would both try to gain other votes that they it will make things harder for the voters. Right now I think its better off staying where it is and not moving it to a single member. This will not be the best for the voters.
I disagree with the majority of the class. I do think that the current voting system that the U.S. is using needs to be fixed, there is evidence that it isn't working and that a person's vote doesn't matter because in the end it all comes down to choices made in electoral college and who has the most money. Many states do not have a high voter turn out due to the certain culture of the state and registration issues. A possible answer to raising voter turnout in the U.S. could be implementing Instant Run Off Voting.
ReplyDeleteIRV would provide elections with a majority winner, it would also encourage sincere voting, because a person's vote would always count because even if their vote doesn't go to the candidate that they initially wanted, it would automatically be cast to their second choice. Using this method would also aid in discouraging negative campaigns from happening. Some may argue that this system would not be able to happen due to the challenges that it would face, but implementing any form of new voting system would run into similar challenges.
In order for IRV to work, there would have to be consistency among the state electoral statutes. If this were the case now, maybe there would not be as many discrepencies with single member plurality. An IRV voting system would come cloister to electing officials with the support of majority voters, this is what we are currently striving for anyway so why not do it? IRV would also eliminate current problems facing elections such as the spoiler problem and reducing the cost of elections in general. Candidates would be elected on what they stood for, not how much money that had thanks to the contributions of wealthy stakeholders.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the "cookie cutter form" of voting. I think what would be best for the US is a mixture of system, but largely based on two-round runoff voting.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I believe it is important to eliminate all voting districts. In order to better serve the states, the states need to be a whole. Now I understand that when the election is going on, the candidates are going to be at each other's throat and that's hard to forget after the election is over but the more we can bring together the candidates within the state, the more they are going to work together on issues for that state.
I believe the two-round runoff would work best because the first round could be withholding a party declaration. This means that during the first round, voters would vote on the candidates issues and those issues only. I also understand that this can be problematic due to some corruption such as "Jim seems conservative and I definitely don't want to vote liberal, I'll vote for Jim" but I believe this would be rare. Yes there are always going to be strong party voters but I believe this creates a more even playing field.
This is also where combining two systems could be beneficial. Voters should also rank the candidates like they do with the instant runoff system. Voters could rank each candidate by which one presents the best platform of issues and then in second round voting, the most liked candidates with the best ideas will be on the second ballot.
I also believe that the first election should be during a general election, when voter turnout is higher. That way there is a better likely hood that the most liked candidates will move the the second election. I know that the paper on these voting types says its expensive to hold two elections and that the second election usually has a lower turnout, but if the election is close, voters will come.
I believe that the US has never fit the "cookie cutter form" of anything since the beginning of this nation. Trying to fit us into any one election system is going to be difficult and the best idea I can think of is a combination of different systems.
I agree with what seems to be the majority of the classes opinions is that we should move away from single member plurality and move towards proportional representation. There are pros and cons to each side of this discussion but I think that the pros out weigh the cons in this case. With single member plurality, as discusses in the article, minority and ethnic groups are not widely represented with single member plurality which I think is a major problem. This country was built on the idea of a melting pot, all different kinds of people and I think that now more than ever it is important for the minorities and all ethnic groups to be represented, which is what can happen is we move towards a more proportional representation. In an article from The Week UK it discusses the pros and cons of the United States and other countries such as the UK, India and other countries moving towards proportional representation. One of the major pros it discussed and a main point many of the other students have discussed is the idea that it will increase voter turn-out. I know in my experience that I do not fall directly into one group or the other, there are ideas from both parties I like, so I generally don't just vote because as we discussed about in class it would probably be just a wasted vote. This is the mind set that many Americans have while voting. The article discusses that proportional representation allows people to feel more like their vote matters and they can also have better representation, both of which will increase voter turn out. A major argument that The Week UK argues that compromise may not always be a good thing. They give the example of Italy, whom participates in proportional representation and they have many issues with their parliament and have had to dissolve it seven times in the past 40 years. For the united states that would be a huge problem, but I think we can work around it. Other countries have successfully found a balance and a good way to work proportional representation Similarly like we discussed many weeks ago in class big reason we even have states is that they work well to compare with because they are so similar, they are good laboratories. So keeping this in mind I think we can find something that works better for all of the states, minorities, and ethnic groups in our constantly changing society.
ReplyDeleteSingle member representation is the election system that consists of two parties that are competing against each other for votes. The one party that has majority of the votes and people will be responsible for getting the word out there and make decisions. Opposed to the minority party, they are responsible for fighting for their votes and trying to beat out the majority party. Both parties are fighting for their win. I think that this can be good or not because people have one or the other to vote for. Most people don't vote for that third party because the majority and minority parties prevail. Proportional representation deals with the third party. This gives the population a chance to cast their vote on a spectrum not based on liberal and conservative. Not everyone in the U.S. is either or, they have a say on both of the spectrums. In saying that, the proportional representation comes into play and would help out those who don't want to vote for either of the two main parties. It some what forces the voters to vote for a particular party based on popularity and thinking that their vote doesn't matter. The minority (third party) would get their voice heard and equality would play a much bigger role in the election, which is what this country stands for.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Unites States should move away from single member plurality elections because its outdated, creates high levels of wasted votes and deny fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women. The people do not feel fully represented with this approach and some do not even find the point of voting. Also this type of election leads to bizarre election results when parties with fewer votes can still win more seats in the legislature due to intentional or accidental gerrymander effect.
ReplyDeleteThe US should adopted proportional representation system also referred to as PR. According to League of Women Voter’s paper, the number of seats won in a legislature is determine by the number of votes. For example, if a political party wins 20 percent of their vote, it will receive 20 percent of the seats. This is the opposite of single-member plurality approach where winner takes all; it gives third parties an opportunity to win part of a seat and represent the people nationwide. PR allows proportionality by electing several members per district instead of one member of the legislature per district.
On proportional-representation.org, is a website explaining proportional representation and the benefits of adapting this type of representation. Some of the benefits mentioned on the website are representation being proportion to the concerns of the people, minimizing the cost of election, democracy and no abuse of process. It also elaborates on the two types of representation in the world, geographical (single member, first-past-the-post) and indeterminate (PR), and it also talks about the countries utilizing proportional representation.
Single member plurality has been the method of choice in the United States throughout our history, but looking forward it may not be the best choice for our future. As we discussed in class, the political party system is in decline, and with this being the case it may be in our best interest to find a way of electing our representatives that doesn't rely so heavily on choosing a party.
ReplyDeleteProportional representation, as my classmates have discussed, looks to be a viable option for elections. In this method it is easier and more logical to choose to use your vote based on an individual and their platform rather than based solely on party or who you think will win. This creates more opportunity for any deserving person who has good ideas and a strong platform the chance to win a seat and make a difference.
I thought my classmate Jacob Long brought up some good counter-points to the argument for proportional representation though. He pointed out that there is. O knowing how many parties would arise if this method was out into place, and that it create more conflict in the government than good because if we can't get two parties to agree on something, how will we get more to do that? I think the rise of additional parties could make compromise more of a possibility, to some extent, because there will likely be some candidates with more moderate opinions, instead of two polar opposites trying to come together. If that isn't the case though and the additional opinions are also more on the extreme side, I can see where Jacob's point would hold true. He also brought up that the country isn't ready for the switch to a new system. This, just from a logistical standpoint, I can easily agree with. Changing the voting system of an entire country would be a big to-do and very difficult to implement. It could also negatively impact voter turnout, at least until people are used to and get the hang of the new system.
I feel that one of the biggest issues regarding voting is that citizens don’t think their votes matter. I believe the reason for this is because were in a single member plurality system. If we were to move to a proportional representation, smaller parties would get more of a say and their votes will count even if there are bigger parties. Where as, in the single member system, the bigger parties out rule smaller parties. I also think having a single member system divides the country up even more than it already is. In other words, voters are either conservative or liberal, but what about the people that can see both sides? In a proportional representation, you can vote for alternatives if you don’t agree with the mainstream political ideas, making the citizens feel like they have a say.
ReplyDeleteThe government should work to change the state and local legislature from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government. The major parties, democratic and republican are very black and white. Both parties have extremely opposing opinions, which can sometimes discourage people to vote for either. The Democratic Party usually supports issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and other controversial topics. If someone were to oppose any of those issues they are almost forced to vote for the opposite party even if they don’t agree with all of the Republican policies. The problem works the same both ways because voters that disagree with Republican Party opinions usually end up voting for the Democratic Party. I think the only reason the parties disagree with every issue is because voters must choose between the two parties so if one parties has a strong belief, the other assumes the opposite position to gain the votes of the rest that don’t agree. If the government was able to give a proportion of the seats in the legislature to the parties that were voted for I believe a lot more people would be interested in voting. The incentive to vote has a much better outcome for a proportional representation government.
ReplyDeleteThere are 211 democratic nations in the world; of these, 68 employ the single-member plurality system that we use in the United States. This comes out to 32% of democracies, not a very high percentage at all. At first I figured there must be flaws significant enough to disqualify this system in the eyes of other countries, so I investigated for a bit before realizing that I still support the SMP system despite the disadvantages.
ReplyDeleteThe first obvious flaw is that diversity is not represented when there is one representative speaking for all the constituents of a district, especially when it comes to racially diverse areas. Then there is the concept of gerrymandering; it is not a far stretch to be able to manipulate these zones or distracts to produce a certain outcome.
With only two candidates to choose from, tactical voting becomes a reality for the majority of voters. There is pressure to vote for one of the two who is slated to win because the SMP system never produces a third party winner, so people feel that it’s a wasted vote. Professor Berch, this is what you referred to in the blog about voting for “the lesser of two evils” and I’ve seen it time and time again. It’s when people say “Yeah I don’t like this guy, but I hate the other guy, so I’m voting for him.” This also forces people to rely on media polls to figure out the top two candidates so that their vote is not wasted.
There is no perfect system. The flaws of the SMP system, however, do not concern me as much as the flaws of proportional representation. The idea of constantly changing coalitions destabilizing our government is troubling, which the League of Women Voters article pointed out when discussing Italy and Israel. In America, either the Democrats or Republicans are in control. But the PR system has 2 or more parties form a coalition if no party wins a majority of seats in a legislature. I liken this to a child who is bounced around to a bunch of foster homes instead of sharing custody with a mother and a father. It sucks that they can’t live with both parents at the same time, but those parents don’t agree on things so that’s impossible. Still, at least they know what to expect from either instead of constantly have a change of rules, ideology, etc. from multiple people that just confuses them.
In our SMP system, a representative is held accountable and therefore can be either re-elected or disposed of in the next election. I like the idea of having one person accountable because blame can’t be shifted all over the place. It is undeniably a stable system. The people know who their representative is and know their voice has the ability to be heard. This opinion is not the same as many of my classmates one that has kept our nation stable and running over the years.
Should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections? I agree with my classmates that the US should change to proportional representation. Single member plurality can not ensure geographical representation. Single member plurality is focused too much on two parties. So the republicans and democrats get all of the advantages of this system and third parties are often left out. I think that changing to proportional representation would eliminate the advantages and every party would have an equal chance in debates, getting money for their campaigns, and gaining T.V. time to become better known. Republicans and democrats though often run on multiple issues in an election while some third parties run on a single issue. So in some cases it is possible that a third party candidate could be elected on one issue and not know what they will do in response to other issues which could be totally different than your views, but sometimes third party candidates have better ideas. So changing to a proportional representation does have its disadvantages but I think it has more advantages as far as candidates have a more opportunity, representation of minorities, and voter turnout. Often is single member plurality people feel as if their vote doesn't count so they don't participate in elections but with proportional representation I think this would attract more people to participate in elections and draw a new crowd of people to elections. The disadvantage is electing someone that runs on single issue in districts but if there are multiple people from a district running I think that no one could run on a single issue and win.
ReplyDeleteThird Party candidates have a very difficult time winning elections in this country. I think that the US voters have a complete biased towards a particular party. Third parties never really win because they will never have enough support or coverage to beat a candidate from a larger political party. I think when voters do vote that they are completely biased towards their political party when voting. I think the third party candidates never gets taken seriously and people feel that it is a waste of a vote and a waste of time. In the proportional system all the votes would matter and it would give third parties a fighting chance to get a seat. 21 of 28 countries in Western Europe use this system and it has worked for them. If a party gets 50% of the vote it gets 5 seats and if it gets 10% it gets 1 seat. I think this could work in our country and I think it would benefit the US government and the way we run elections.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should begin to move away from single member plurality legislative elections, and begin to adapt something more like proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteThe single member plurality system does not allow Americans to properly voice their opinions, nor does it properly represent the people. I do not understand how someone can go into office without winning the popular vote. We were founded on the principles of democracy; therefore I believe that our voting system should reflect those principles. One of the biggest problems with single member plurality is that people tend to shy away from third parties because they don’t want to waste their vote. Since it would be so rare for a third party representative to win the election, or even come near people completely do away with third parties.
The system that would best represent the people’s interest, in my opinion, would be the proportional system. This is because represents the democratic model our country was founded on.
The example I always think of when discussing third parties and elections, my mind automatically goes to the election of 1912. While this is on national level, Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican Party in half, by creating the Bull Moose Party after failing to receive the republican nomination. Because the Republican Party was split between Roosevelt and Taft, Wilson was able to win the election. The results of the election, however, did not fully represent the people’s beliefs. A majority of the people did identify as republicans, even though the democratic candidate won. Now this situation happens a lot more often on a state and local level. A proportional system lets candidates to be acknowledged based on the percentage of votes they received rather than allowing one person or party to assume office just because they won a majority of the votes. This model would also attract new candidates to third parties because people would not be committing social suicide by joining a third party; this I believe could allow third parties to grow strong and emerge onto the political scene.
In conclusion, I believe the proportional representation model would be the best option for the United States, because it best represents Americans’ views opposed to only representing and encouraging bipartisanism. As we progress as a nation, I hope to see changes made within our election system.
I am choosing to agree with most of my peers and say I think it would be beneficial for the United States if we made the transition from single member plurality to a proportional system. Though the single plurality system may have worked in the past when there weren't as many different views and demographics of people, I think the use of it now and is the future is not a great representation of the people of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI like how Emma Trap mentioned that our country was founded on the idea of a melting pot and the views of all different kinds of people are now not being heard with the use of single member plurality. I agree with her and think that just having two parties, even though political parties are in the decline in no way represents the views of citizens. The Democrat and Republican parties have been growing to extremes in their views which makes it increasingly difficult for people that may not agree 100% on one party to vote.
A issue I have with proportional voting however is int he article provided it mentions "Choice Voting" and raking representatives in order by how much you like them. I think that could get confusing and I don't see the good in it. If the United States shifted to proportional one day I don't think Choice Voting would be the correct way.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/PropRep_WhyNeed.html
Above is a viewpoint of someone in support for a proportional system, I specifically like when he says "Our society is becoming more politically heterogeneous, and yet our legislatures are made up of the same old Republican and Democratic politicians." Though simple I think this is a solid argument for a proportional system to be implemented in the United States.
I think we should make the move to a proportional representation system. The system we have now allows only the views of the majority to be accepted into office. If we allow a proportional system to take place, it will allow third-party candidates to get a better chance because of the fact that a potential voter for the third party candidate has a higher "vote value." This will also attract more voters as the general populous will accept that their votes actually mean something. We will have higher voter turnout because of this. This will also allow a higher variation of ideas in legislature. With a higher variety of ideas making decisions on issues, there will more likely be a decision made that will please more people. It also allows for more gray area in legislature. In our current system, votes and ideas are very black-and-white. With this new in-between idea of thinking, we will have a better idea of what people actually want in their candidates. Many countries have this system and it seems to work out as many of my colleagues have pointed out. We should get on the bandwagon as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government should move away from the single member plurality, and move to the proportional representation way of voting. In the single member plurality way of voting, the person with the most votes wins, doesnt even come out to a majority in some cases. This takes away a chance for a third party candidate to get elected usually, because they do not have as much media and press to gain attention and the two major parties have told the people that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. The two main parties also do not like that fact that they will have to work with another party, and possibly have disagreements and not get a vote passed that they would have gotten passed if one of their members would have won the election.
ReplyDeleteThe proportional representation system would work more effectively I believe. This would work better, because it gives many people a better chance to be elected. In the proportional system, you vote for a party, and depending upon the percentage of votes you receive, then based upon the number of seats thats how many you will get. So say there is 10 seats, you get 10% of the votes, your party gets one seat. This is a better way of voting because you have the ability to get people from multiple parties, and you can hear other voices that you might not have heard before. This form of voting gives third party members and equal chance for representation. The downfalls of this however is that members of the third party would have to form a coalition with one of the larger parties to get votes and bills passed. There is also a threshold rule, that does not allow a vast amount of parties to run for office.
I believe that having a third party representative in office would be a good thing for many reasons. You have the opportunity to see more views and have members in office that may share the same views as you. Most of the world uses the PR form of voting and we are the only ones that vote the way we do. If we change our way to allow more third member parties, and have as many views as we can on a subject, then we will be more successful as a country and more equal than we have ever been.
I believe that transitioning from a single member plurality system to a proportional representational system would benefit the US. I don't think that the single member plurality system accurately represents US citizens under a democratic system. The single member plurality system tends to favor elite groups in the US and shuts out third party groups that should be recognized. When there are only two parties to choose from, there becomes a politically corrupt battle for the candidates who we have seen go overboard with promises that they can not meet when they get elected. It becomes corrupt near election time as candidates do whatever necessary to receive votes even if its changing their own ideologies that they had from the start. While there is no perfect system, the proportional representation system fits with American values of having fair representation that encompasses different views. The proportional representation system helps minority parties gain some media coverage and provides insight into some of the other issues that wouldn't be addressed in a single member plurality system. One large benefit of the proportional system is that Americans would be able to vote for the person that they actually like instead of picking between the lesser of two evils. Since this person would receive representation anyways, the seats would be filled by a more accurate representation. This would show what issues tend to be more important than others and how much support these issues are getting on a less biased basis. Proportional representation makes sense for Americans and could allow for different parties to gain recognition and allow the people to actually vote for someone they like.
ReplyDeleteFrom certain perspectives, single member plurality may seem like the only feasible election technique for the U.S. Single member districts ensure a majority control in the legislature and geographical representation to address regional issues. However, despite guaranteeing a majority rule, single member district elections employ winner-take-all elections and do not require a majority vote to win the seat. This ultimately wastes votes and does nothing to maximize the ballots. Also, single member plurality does not always advocate for the common good while they rally for local concerns of their district, and often neglects the representation of minority groups. District lines are typically drawn to ensure the majority control of the area's major party. Smaller parties and minor parties do not have a chance to obtain representation. I believe there are too many flaws with the single member plurality election system for the U.S. to continue to utilize this method. The country would be better suited for a proportional representation system
ReplyDeleteProportional representation gives the smaller party and third parties a chance at political participation. Minority groups have a stronger voice and proportional votes typically benefit the common good more so than specific regions. Third parties in a single member district steal votes from the candidate that shares the most similar views as them, but proportional representation allows these third parties to form coalitions with the larger supporting parties, and accomplish more tangible goals rather than interfering with governance. Less votes are wasted and more sincere voting takes place, resulting in the most preferred candidates winning seats. Proportional representation comes with its flaws, but it is a much more suitable compromise than continuing the single member district method.
In my opinion, I believe that the United States should start moving away from single member plurality legislative elections. Just like several other people have mentioned, single member plurality focuses entirely too much on just two parties. With that said, the third party candidates always have minimal to no attention drawn to them. By changing to proportional representation, parties would gain more equal opportunities when it comes to certain things for example campaigning systems, and debates. Proportional representation will aid not just Democrat and Republican parties but the third party candidates as well.
ReplyDeleteThe single member plurality system is unfair on many different levels. It does not give parties as much leeway as they deserve. In additional, proportional representation seems to be an easier way to make a decision on who should become the next candidate. I always question..why is there a third party candidate if no one even knows who he/she is and why they are running? By having the United States change their system they would be able to better enforce the third party and their reasoning for running.
Proportional representation would be an ideal system. Third parties would finally have some sort of a fighting chance and be fairly represented. If you look at our system now, which is of course single member plurality, Democrats and Republicans are the parties that get the most attention and almost always get the winning seat. There are problems with this, as the ‘amount’ of liberal or conservative a candidate may be varies. People start to float towards the middle of the spectrum and then you have outliers, those at the very outsides of the party spectrum. But the system is easily implemented and seems to work effectively. Proportional representation would be great. Those parties and candidates would finally have a chance to represent their platform and help major parties take notice to minority parties. But, there is a large problem with all of these different platforms being represented. You would not only have the few different kinds of Democrats and Republicans butting heads, but every other minority party around that has something to say, too many people trying to make one collective decision. The paper posted by the League of Women voters starts to outline criteria that could be useful in helping to ensure a better representation through, I’m guessing, any system of representation. Listed are things such as ensuring majority rule, encouraging minority and geographical representation, increasing voter representation and giving the voters a variety of voting choices. Unless I am interpreting the text wrong, I believe things like this should be enforced. That way our single member plurality system isn’t so two-dimensional.
ReplyDeleteI believe one of the biggest concerns for the people of the United States is whether or not their voice matters to the people they elect or if their vote in the first place matters. This would make an argument for proportional representation system instead of a single member plurality.
ReplyDeleteIf you talk to any child about how someone should win a vote they would say the person with the most votes wins, that's how we do it in children games, yet when we start teaching our children about voting for elections, we suddenly have all these exceptions and electoral votes and districts and gerrymandering. So why do we make it so complicated to the point of citizens not believing their votes will count anymore.
If we go to a proportional representation system, it gives every candidate a better and maybe more equal chance of being elected. It might also take away the voters compromising on election days to a candidate who has a better chance of winning but is not who the citizen really believes should be representing them in the government. The proportional representation system gives everyone a better system that is fair to all candidates and all voters, because everyone has a better chance of getting what they really want in the government.
Although flawed in some ways, I still believe that the single member plurality voting system that we have in place is the best option for our country. I also disagree with the majority of my classmates that the best alternative for this system would be a proportional representation system.
ReplyDeleteYes, a proportional system would help solve the problem of wasted votes but other than that it wouldn't help many things. On some occasions in this system, it would play out that a single issue party or candidate would win a percentage in the governing body. If this happened it would not bode well for the overall effectiveness to govern the country. Other times, coalitions will have to be formed to make a majority government. As I have seen in places like Great Britain, coalitions can sometimes get very complicated and very messy. We as a country need a system that will allow candidates who are overall well rounded and who will be able to have a majority of the votes in order to govern effectively.
this is why I still believe that the single member plurality system is the best for our country. In order for this person to win they have to win a majority of the seats. In some cases, this means that they have to waiver on some of their personal interests and beliefs in order to win. This shows that the candidate will have to, for the most part, do what he says and promises to do in order to be reelected by his district. Other than that, it gives the system itself a majority in order to govern effectively.
Yes, third parties in this country do not have the best of luck with elections in this country. The upside to this is, even if you waiver on a few issues of a certain party, you can still join that majority party in order to move the issues that matter to you along. Also, yes, this system does have its downfalls. With gerrymandering happening more and more all over the country, certain parties and ensuring their victories in some areas. But no system comes without some flaws attached to it.
If we were to move to any system at all, I believe that the best system would be a two round runoff system. With this system, you have more people coming together and compromising in order to gain the majority for their party or candidate. This also solves the problem of wasted votes by people having to come together twice to choose the best candidate. It would also solve the problem of minor parties not having a chance. The minor parties could throw its weight to one of the higher voted parties or candidates in order to win the election.
If I had been asked before this assignment if I thought our current system of single-member plurality was flawed I probably would not of had anything bad to say, or anything much to say at all. After looking into all of the positives and the overwhelming amount of negatives, I think I've had a change of view.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing that about 80% of developed democracies do not use the same system that we do, it made me think we might be on the wrong side of that statistic. Single-member plurality is so damaging to third parties because they receive an insignificant amount of votes because people believe that their vote is going to waste. They instead choose a member of the two major parties because they're vote is basically wasted if they vote for someone they know won't win. This is why I initially leaned toward the IRV system of voting. This one made sense to me that the candidates are ranked by voters because then third parties can still be voted for but people won't be afraid that they're vote is being wasted. The only problem with this is that it needs to be hand-counted or we would have to purchase new voting machines. Personally, this is a small price for a more fair system of voting.
Then I read into the proportional voting system, and this seemed like the most logical way that I was confused as to why we didn’t already have this system implemented. Like most answers on this blog, the belief is that the PR system is more fair, I can't help but to agree. It only seems fair to reward the same percentage of representation to the percentage of the vote that candidate got. The winner-take all system most states use now just contributes to the idea of wasted votes. With a plurality system, even voters that do not support the majority candidate can still have some representation.
I believe shifting from single member to PR is not the best decision for our political system. We have been sung the single member electoral system for years and its worked thus far. No matter which type of political system we use, each one will have its own pros and cons. Like others have stated before, single member can be unfair and bias. It works for the majority leader and benefits the two parties, potentially separating our nations views to extreme measures. People argue that implementing PR will fill in these gaps with members that share some of the same views, allowing for easier decision making. I believe allowing more parties and more members into office will hurt our system. The single member system uses the BEST candidate for the job, regardless if others don't agree with some of his views. With different percentages of people in office, some of these members won't be as qualified as the main majority leaders, and weaken what we have built for so long. Having too many people in the system, in my opinion, will cause more confusion rather then help.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you believe that it's worked thus far so why change it. However, thus far, has everyone had equal representation? I don't believe they have. Their views and opinions are ignored due to the fact that the third party representative they would have voted for had no chance of actually winning the election. Let me give you this example, say 48% of Florida votes for a conservative and 45% vote for the liberal running and the left over 7% voted for a minor party. Obviously, the conservative gets the office and they will represent their views and the views of the 48% that put them there. BUT what about the majority of the state not having voted for that candidate? They lost all representation.
DeleteI believe that in order for our government to equally represent the people which the govern, we need to begin moving away from single member plurality elections and move toward proportional representation elections. There are several benefits of proportional representation elections and several problems with single member plurality legislative elections.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, with a single member plurality elections, many citizens are discouraged from voting due to the fact that they feel as if their individual vote will never actually matter. They may believe this for several different reasons; 1. they could live within a district that is largely dominated by their opposing party. 2. they could be in favor of a third party or minority candidate, whom they believe would have no real chance of being in office. These two thoughts cause some people to not cast a vote at all. Moving to a proportional representative way of election would encourage these people to vote because they have a chance of getting at least a little bit of representation in the legislative branch, even if that may be one person. Moving away from the winner take all would be beneficial to everyone.
Moving away from single member plurality elections would also help control the government gerrymandering. For example, I am from Columbus, Ohio which is a very liberal area. However, the suburbs of Columbus are mostly conservative. The districts in this area are constantly being redrawn based off of which party is currently in office. It is typically split up in one of two ways, either Columbus is a district all by itself, or Columbus is split up into small portions and grouped with the nearest suburb. This causes unequal representation for whomever is in favor of the party not in office.
Moving toward a proportional representative election would not only help people who feel as if their vote does not matter but it would also give third party politicians more of a chance to actually win an election. They would be given the opportunity to represent the small amount of people who voted for them.
I believe that it would be beneficial to our government and to our society to move away from single member plurality election and to move toward proportional representation elections.
I agree with a majority of my classmates that it would be beneficial to eventually move away from the single-member plurality system and towards proportional representation. As Samantha Jenkins acknowledged, America was founded on the idea of a melting pot. In the single-member plurality system, views from parties other than the party elected are neglected. Yes, some minority views are represented amongst the two parties, however they do not yet have a voice that specifically represents themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases of election, both republican and democrat candidates will play both sides and make promises they don’t always keep in fear of losing votes. The League of Women Voters paper mentions that the single-member plurality system makes it virtually impossible for minor parties to win seats and therefore guarantees the two-party system. One of the main disadvantages of the single-member plurality system is that many votes are often wasted. The fact that these systems do such a poor job in representing certain minorities is what has sparked a growing interest in alternative methods.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/proportional_representation.htm
Above is a link to a site I found that discusses proportional representation and how it has been used throughout Europe. Advantages and disadvantages of the system are presented along with specific examples of places in which it has been successful and also places in which it has not.
I think many of my classmates have valid points in saying that involving third parties would just add complexity to an already difficult process, however I do believe that change is necessary. Although it would not happen overnight, or even quickly at all, minority party voices would eventually be heard and I think that that is important. The proportional representation system has been successful in multiple well-developed countries which gives me hope that it could also be successful in ours. As you can infer from my comments above, I think that a system that encourages minor parties is a good thing.
I feel as though I would have to agree with the majority of the class with switching our voting system from a single member plurality to more of a proportional representation government. The main problem that I see with us using a single member plurality is the number of votes that doesn't account for anything in the long run. I believe that accompanied with this problem comes a great deal of citizens uninterested in voting because of the lost feeling of importance. Based on the US census bureau, in 2012 only 64% of Americans voted for our last presidential election. I believe the number of voter would be much higher if we were to switch over to a proportional representation government. One of the main reasons that it would improve voter turnout is that the system allows a more accurate representation of parties. With the number of candidates from each party determined by the percentage of votes the party receives it creates a more equal opportunity for candidates to be represented and more power to each citizens vote. With more Americans coming out to vote on election days I believe that more US citizens would be better represented in contrast to our election system now.
ReplyDeleteThe current election system that we use now, single member plurality is unfair for a number of reasons. The first being that it completely undermines and ignores the third party candidates. It gives the two major parties all of the power, so it is easy for them to make the third parties appear irrelevant. Voters obviously want to feel like their votes are important and actually being taken into consideration, so even if they agree with some of the ideals and opinions of third party candidates they will more often than not go with a Republican or a Democrat because they are the ones with all the power to actually make necessary changes. Also, it is not only the third parties that are being disregarded under this election system. It does the same to minorities and women in the United States. According to the paper that you sent us to complete this assignment, this is a major reason why the Voting Rights Act was put into place. This screams corrupt, our nation's modern ethics stand for equality. So why do we continue to support a system that so blatantly ignores the rights of our citizens? To put it simply, we should not continue supporting this system and rather switch to one that promotes fairness for candidates and our nation's people equally. This could be achieved through the proportional representation system. It gives all candidates a fair chance to actively be apart of their government with a percent to seat in house style system. Since everybody is being viewed as equals it only makes sense to switch to this form of election.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen and read, I think that it would be the best and most fair decision for the United States to start to shift away from the single member plurality voting system. As a young American, a question that often crosses my mind is whether or not my “vote” or “voice” is truly making a difference in what is going on in our country. If we were to shift to a proportional representation type of voting, it would be much more fair and equal, and it would force both political parties and third party members to come together and make decisions as a whole. What is the point of a democracy if not every persons opinion is being heard.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States Government is going to have a difficult time finding a voting system that fits everyone state perfectly. The single member plurality, I believe fits more with smaller states who has less house seats, however the proportional system would work better with larger states have many candidates and seats in the house. The proportional system is good for larger states for the very reason that the sate has many issues and it would create balance throughout the state and the house to have a more equal say in parties and throughout the house. The single member voting is better for states such as W.V. because, there may only be certain issues that all the candidates are trying to address, so putting in third party would be almost pointless. Especially when there is limited number of representatives going to the house. With all being said I think that it is in everyone best interest to stick with single member plurality election because it fits more than less states better than proportional. It has less flaws choice voting and IRV.
ReplyDeleteThe current election system is something I believed needed to be changed a while ago. The two-party system alienates too many candidates from having an equal shot at becoming an elected official. It is common knowledge that our founding fathers believed that a two-party system would turn into one against the other rather than working together to make a better country. If we had more candidates going at once, each one would try harder to make themselves stand out and look better rather than trying to make their opponent look worse.
ReplyDeleteI am a culprit of voting Democrat or Republican just because I don't want to waste my vote. It seems that everyone on this blog post also feels like we need a new voting system. If there is something that is easier to use and more understandable, what is stopping the government from using it? I think that making more representatives available is the best option.
When I first registered to vote, everyone essentially told me to pick a party to be registered as. When I asked why I couldn’t register as an independent; because I didn’t completely identify with one of the major parties, I was told that come election time if I were to vote for someone other than the democrats or the republicans, my vote would be wasted. Now that we have discussed in class why that is basically true, I understand why voting for the lesser of two evils is more practical that voting for a third party. Is it right? No, but it is how our current system works. I do not agree with the idea of voting for someone because they are less evil that another candidate. This is why I think we should move to a proportional voting system. Like all voting systems it is going to have its drawbacks. If we were to implement it now with our current government there is a big chance that they would not be willing to form coalitions with other parties to get things done, let’s remember that two parties can’t even agree on anything and adding a third party would probably create more issues. A question I would have (and I am not sure if this makes sense) is if we were to switch to a proportional system and (in theory) everyone’s voice would heard, would those small groups that gain seats even have their voices heard? What’s stopping the larger parties from completely ignoring the smaller groups? I do think that we need to somehow incoorperate the third parties into the government to make sure more people are represented but we also need to remember that we are not a direct democracy and we have a lot of people in our country, this leads me to believe that too many opinions in one area could cause problems. I guess I would have to agree with one of my classmates, there needs to be a middle ground between single member plurality and proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteI personally favor the proportional voting system, and if it were in place in the US I would more likely register to vote, unlike now. Single-member plurality has been a debate for many years it seems but nothin really has been done. Thinking back to my parents they believed in the wasted vote, and that concept is why, in my opinion, we can not get past the single-member plurality. If more people were educated in the thought that voting for a third party would not be a wasteful vote, then maybe we could get past the (less than evil) concept and instead of voting democract or republican we can vote for the independent party or libertarian party, or even the natural law party. On http://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States it list 220 different political parties throughout the United States. 220 different political parties and I would be willing to bet many people haven't heard of most of these parties. Changing the system would be more difficult than many people believe though, because the competition would become more fierce between the parties. This could be a good thing for the people or it could get very nasty very quick. I am looking forward, in the many years to come, to see if we would eventually move to a proportional representation, or if we stay at a single member party.
ReplyDeleteThe Single Member Plurality System leaves a lot of people out when voting for our representatives. People are required to agree with and vote for one specific party even if their beliefs don't align one hundred percent with that party. A lot of concerns are ignored, voices aren't heard and representatives who should be elected aren't. Introducing more than two parties and having the proportional voting system will allow everyone's vote to count. It will also allow everyone to be represented and concerns heard. It will also allow more solutions to be offered to our every growing problems in the US. If it's our job to pick representation, why are we only limited to two groups of people who would do anything to secure office and power ignoring he real needs of the American people. With the plural party system and equal representation there would be less corruption and more things getting done.
ReplyDeleteWhile the single member plurality system currently employed in the Unites States has its advantages, I believe there is enough dysfunction within the system to warrant a change of direction. As the article from the League of Women Voters points out, single member plurality is easy for voters to understand. A winner take all system is fairly self-explanatory, but I think it fails to adequately represent all the voters within a given district. Sure, the majority is represented because the candidate who gets the most votes wins the seat, but the opposing side is completely shut out in terms of representation. This means the votes of the minority have been completely wasted. In turn, this could discourage people who believe their party has no chance of winning from voting. For this reason, I would be in favor of moving to a proportional voting system. I believe this system provides the fairest divvying up of representation. Whether you are a member of a major party or a third party, you have a chance to win a seat in the state legislature. In our current system, third party candidates have little to no chance of getting elected. In my opinion, this limits the effectiveness of government, because the same views and opinions are represented over and over again. By giving third party candidates a chance, voters have a better chance of making a decision on who to elect based on which candidate best represents their views, rather than choosing between the “lesser of two evils”, as sometimes happens in single member plurality. No vote is a wasted vote in this system, and I believe that would encourage more people to participate in elections.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should move away from single member plurality systems because other systems could better represent every voter’s interest and move away from some of the bigger problems that the single member plurality has like spoilers and gerrymandering. The biggest advantage it has is that most people in the U.S. who have voted are familiar with this system and it’s easy for those administering the elections to render results. A proportional system solves the two problems of gerrymandering and a spoiler system because every person can vote without worrying it will be wasted. It’s a fair system and has been used effectively in most other democratic countries but in the U.S. the biggest problem with it may be that a voter is only voting for a party and not voting for a candidate which may rattle the cages of traditionalist or people who ignore the party and vote just depending on the candidate these people may stop voting and depending on how many people there are low voter populations may drop even lower. The best choice may be what the League of Women Voters article calls choice voting. It still leans towards a two party system but does not render the spoiler effect and it would also be much harder to have gerrymandering because of people voting more dependent on candidates.
ReplyDeleteI think the U.S. should eventually move from single-member plurality to a proportional representation system. A proportional representation system would more adequately provide representation for minorities, and would give third parties a chance they otherwise wouldn't have in a single-member plurality system. Although I do feel like the proportional rep. system tries to make everyone happy, this of course can never be accomplished. There will always be flaws somewhere along the line, however, I think this system gives more people an incentive to vote. Whether that's a good thing or not with some Americans not being as educated as others...I guess that's just a risk the U.S. must be willing to take. However, having third parties hold seats and have a say in policy making would benefit from the often opposing, cut-and-dry ways of the Republican and Democrat parties.
ReplyDeleteThere are multiple reasons why single member plurality is a bad idea. This system is “susceptible to gerrymandering and may discourage sincere voting,” as noted in the paper. As Americans, we live our lives every day based on this idea that we have exponential freedom as citizens of this country. However, the system of single member plurality kind of contradicts that belief. These third parties and minority parties are extremely underestimated. Their values and ideas never get a chance to be voiced by anyone because America is strictly a two-party system country.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the current system of single member plurality is quick, easy and uncomplicated, I believe that the US should move away from that current system and shift towards a system that is more beneficial to the third party candidates. We claim to be a county of fairness and equality, but this system of elections does not allow that; it is a system only beneficial for certain people and certain parties, but not all. Everyone should get a chance to have his or her opinions and ideas voiced. It seems like the only people that are benefitting from this system are the rich and powerful.
After reading the paper and reading about the League of Women Voters, I feel like proportional representation is a good system for the U.S to adopt. This type of system is one where winner does not take all. This type of voting promotes a multiparty system. In the paper it discusses how with this system, “minor parties have a much better chance of being represented in a PR legislature."
Overall I like the PR system because it gives the minority parties a voice. It gives them a chance to be heard, because they deserve to be.
I would have to agree with Cameron Gleason's comments above. It seems like him and I are on the same page when it comes to wanting a system that makes it more fair for everyone.
Personally I believe that the United States should abandon a single-member plurality government to a proportional representation government. The kind of system we have in place now is extremely biased to only two parties (Republican and Democrat) as 9.9 times out of 10 no one even takes the third party seriously by the time election day comes. For example, if you are buying a truck that you plan on keeping for a long time you are going to go for a mainstream company that you know builds good cars, and you always see them on the road. Not some random company that you’ve never heard of before and aren’t sure how reliable they’re. This is essentially what happens when it comes to voting for a third party, yeah the ideas they have might sound appealing but they you don’t know what you’re going to get. Sadly enough even if you do truly agree with everything a third party candidate is saying and trust him more times than not as you stated in the comments they realize that their vote is evidently wasted since in reality the third party candidate is not going to win so they instead vote for a major party candidate that is the closet to their own personal views and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA proportional representation type government encourages people to vote for what they truly believe in instead of giving in and just voting with the republican or democrat that most closely shares their views. In this type of government everyone gets some representation in the legislative body. However I know one of the main disadvantages of this system is that it is possible for smaller and poorer counties to be ignored by the rest of the state. On the other hand while in the beginning of switching to this governing style this could hold true I believe that in time if those small parties showed citizens what they could since they would now at least have a seat in legislation, next time around they would continue to have support grow for them hence gaining more votes and being able to make bigger changes that people hope for.
I think the US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections. I think that Choice Voting under the Proportional Voting Systems would be a good choice for the United States. There are many characteristics about Choice Voting that qualify as a beneficial voting system. I think it’s important that it is designed to maximize effective votes/minimize wasted votes. This is because it eliminates people voting for someone they really don’t prefer, just because you don’t like the other candidate even less. I personally think it could also eliminate third parties from being completely pushed out of having a chance to win an election. By minimizing wasted votes, it increases voter participation because people feel like their vote counts and can make a difference. The ranked ballot which Choice Voting uses provides the necessary range of voter choice and increases voter participation. Another advantage of Choice Voting is that it can be used in partisan and non-partisan elections. I think this is important because it gives diversity to the system and is beneficial that there doesn’t need to be two different systems for each of these elections. The only disadvantage of this system would be the complexity of the procedure and that it would require each jurisdiction to buy new voting equipment, such as computers. Another disadvantage is that if people are not properly educated about how the election system works, then there could be confusion on the ballots and eventually the results of the election. However, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages for this system. I think it would be worth the time and money to test this system throughout different parts of the United States.
ReplyDeleteThese are two articles I used as reference for my response.
http://www.minnpost.com/minnesota-blog-cabin/2013/10/real-advantage-ranked-choice-voting-no-more-games
https://www.baycitizen.org/news/oakland-mayoral-race/after-election-ranked-choice-voting-gets/
I think the U.S. should stay with the current single member plurality system that is in place. However, I do think that there are some reforms that should be made to make this system better and give third parties a better chance. Campaign financing is the main system that needs to be reformed, I think that there should be a cap on how much a candidate's campaign can spend in a single election. This would give third parties a better chance against the big party money machines. Gerrymandering also need to be changed, it is unsettling how easy it is for parties to reseat districts to their advantage. It should be much harder to reseat districts and the people of the districts should have a say.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said I prefer the single member plurality over proportional representation because I feel you should be able to choose the candidate instead of the party. Not all candidates vote with their parties on every issue and I think voting for a candidate gives the people of that district a better chance to voice their opinions. With proportional representation the representatives that are chosen more than likely will be from the more populated areas and the rural population will be left out. Those representatives will be out of touch with the issues that those smaller populations are concerned with.
After reading the article on the electoral systems as well as responses by my classmates on this issue I can see why many say that moving from a single member system to a proportional representation would be beneficial. I personally can’t say that I agree and disagree with this. Switching to proportional representation would create a more equal playing field for all parties involved and allow people to feel like their vote matters. In the end this would benefit many people who typically don’t vote based on the mere fact that the feel their vote doesn’t matter. I think that it is great that a proportional representation system would allow for third parties to have a bigger voice but at the same time I think it would be more chaotic. Already with only two major parties there are many disagreements and I don’t think that adding to that would solve issues more smoothly. Yes, it would give voters the chance to support third parties when they don’t agree with the other opinions but at the same time all parties are going to have opinions on issues which one person may agree or disagree with. Ultimately the two major parties are chosen for a reason and that is because people support them. I feel that it is hard for third parties to make themselves known therefore having less support than major parties. With this being said I don’t necessarily agree that a PR system would be best. Although single member plurality isn’t the best option either and obviously has it’s flaws I believe that it is a better fit than a PR system.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I have been writing this blog post, my opinion has changed many different times. I kept going back and forth to try to figure out which system is the best for the United States. This really showed me how hard it is to truly know which system would be the best, because there are positives and negative sides to different systems. This is a very complex world we live in and I think it is hard to decide one way or the other which system is the best, because of the all the factors that go into making such an important decision.
ReplyDeleteI think that having a legislator represent a particular geographic area causes them to focus too much on a particular area and not the common good of the citizens of the United States. As a democratic country it is very important to focus on what is good for the majority of the people not just the people in one particular area. Some people would disagree with this, because of a particular industry they work in or a particular lifestyle they lead, but I believe for the good of the majority of citizens in the country this should not be in place.
I as well do not think it is fair that the drawing of the legislative lines are controversial and are drawn to generally advantage the party that is in power. “Gerrymandering is done to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably” (Washington Post). Gerrymandering seems unfair and unjust to the party that is not in power during that time and I do not believe lines should change from election to election. It makes more sense that lines should be drawn and kept the same unless both parties agree to change the lines.
I have mixed feelings about which system should be put into place in the United States because I like that proportional representation has little geographic representation, but I do not like how two parties are in charge of the country. I think that it is fair that minor parties have a chance to be represented because that is what this country was founded on, but I do not believe it is for the good for the country to have two parties running the country. Often times, it is very hard for parties to come to an agreement and make solid decisions when both sides have very different views on a number of issues.
I believe that the United States should not move away from single member plurality legislative elections, although I think gerrymandering and that legislators representing a particular geographic location are not the best choices I still believe it is the best system for the country. Although I think it is fair for minority parties to be represented I do not think it is what is best for the country because then two parties are in charge of the country together and have to form coalitions together, which generally does not work well. Not only could there be just two parties, but other minority parties as well. In the League of Women Voters paper, proportional representation is described and indicated that in a 10-seat body needing less then 10 percent of the vote you can be elected. I do not think this is a good idea seeing as you could have a large number of parties trying to make decisions. Countries that do use this type of system use a threshold policy that makes sure that you have a certain percentage to receive a seat. I think this is a very important factor if a country is using this type of system.
The number one important factor in deciding a system for a country I believe is to ensure majority rule. This is exactly what the single member plurality system does. This is a cornerstone of a democratic government and helps ensure peaceful transitions from one political party to the next in elections. Most other systems including proportional representation and choice voting do not ensure majority rule and that is why I cannot pick another system for the United States to switch to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
I agree with Lindsey Tolliver that proportional representation should be considered as the method of voting in legislative elections in the US. USA Today says that 90 million Americans will not vote in the election this November. Reasons for Americans not voting range from “I don’t have time to vote,” or “my vote doesn’t matter.” I feel as if a proportional representation voting system would get more voters involved in elections because they would feel as if their vote really counts, and if they feel as if their vote really counts then they will make more of an attempt to make time to vote. USA Today also says that when 800 Americans were polled, only 39% of them of could correctly name the vice president of the United States. This statistic is evidence that people just don’t care about the government anymore, and I believe part of people’s not caring anymore is due to the fact that its all about “Republican or Democrat” in elections. It’s not as much about values and morals as it should be. Therefore, I feel as if a proportional representation system of voting would give third parties a better chance in elections, thus switching the focus of elections from what party is being elected to the morals and views of the candidates. Read this USA Today article and you will see what kind of mess our country is in politically. It is sad how little people care about the government of the country that they live in. This USA Today article also shows that 59% of Americans don’t vote because they say “nothing ever gets done.” If more people would make time to vote and actually cared then maybe more would get done. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/non-voters-obama-romney/57055184/1
ReplyDeleteI believe that the single member plurality rule does not accurately represent American voters or demonstrate the idea of a democracy. The single member plurality rule tends to ignore the importance of the third party making it extremely difficult for the third party to win any votes. Society today is becoming more diverse and if the government continues to use the single member plurality rule the diversity will never be equally represented. With this being said a system such as the proportional system would be more beneficial for the United States government. One way it would become more beneficial is it would allow for the third party candidates to have a more important role in elections which would allow for more ideas in the government. Over all the proportional system will result in the more preferred candidates winning in the election. It give candidates and voters a more fair system of voting in comparison to the single member plurality rule.
ReplyDeleteFrom the information provided, as well as a little further research, the proportional representation system seems like a much better idea than what we currently have. My only concern is something that has been mentioned previously and that, in a nutshell, is disagreements. We currently have two main parties that fight back and forth, Republicans and Democrats. Obviously there are others as well, but those are the big ones. These two parties take far too long to reach agreements on anything. It was so bad that the government was shut down. My fear is that if we switch to the proportional system, this problem could get even worse. I love the idea of more groups and minorities being represented, but I'm afraid that by having even more opinions involved in every issue, there may be a serious problem in getting things done. If decisions can't be made promptly between two sides, then how will they be made promptly between more than that?
ReplyDeleteSo the decision on which style to use comes down to what you want most from the system: promptness or inclusion?
In my opinion, switching to a proportional representation system in the US is the only knowledgable switch to be made. With a proportional representation system, citizens can start voting for who they believe will bring the most to the table, instead of voting for someone based solely on their affiliation. Candidates who are deemed "third party" will get the support they need as well as a say in the end. On top of that, candidates of the two major parties (democratic and republican), might stop being so damn one track minded. Perhaps candidates will begin sharing their actual values and beliefs rather than attempting to appeal to their affiliation by making bullshit decisions that they know aren't even necessary. If we were to terminate the idea of running elections between two opposites, we could focus on what really matters. The biggest problem with our current system, again this is in my opinion, is the people who claim to vote democrat or republican just so that their vote is not "wasted." There is no such thing as a wasted vote. If people would stop voting for the majority simply because they don't want to be part of the silent minority, then maybe it wouldn't matter what type of system we have in the United States. Unfortunately, unless people man up and make decisions based on THEIR beliefs and values, it simply doesn't matter what kind of system we have.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the paper by the League of Women Voters, it’s obvious to me that Proportional Voting System seems the most logical for the U.S. to move towards. It gives third parties a chance, and simply gives everyone a voice in government. Not one party dominates the other, and there’s representation from all popular views. The sound of having everyone represented and giving third parties a chance, is great news for many citizens, third party supporters or not. Not everyone that’s a democrat or republican can find themselves far left or far right. Third parties can bring more to the table that some think. But when I put some thought into, I disagree with it being the most logical. For the U.S., I still support our single-member plurality system. I don’t agree with it being out of date because our country has grown and flourished with this as our government voting system. I see where the complains for poor voter turn out and having more competitive elections, but instead of complaining about it, we should just encourage these things so we can fix them ourselves. I also am a believer that making voting a priority one day of the year is important to those who's votes are most influential to the election, the one’s who are most educated on the campaigns.
ReplyDeleteI found an article done by CNN in 2012 talking about the struggles of third parties and why the fail. Along with Megan Barnes and Renata, I agree that third parties bring complexity to the system. And even though we have so many advocates for change, no one actually wants to be the one to do it and have the probability of it failing to be on their shoulders. In the article, http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/politics/third-party-fail/index.html, they talk about the third party American’s Elect and the failure that came upon them in the 2012 election. To summarize, the American’s Elect party had all the necessities. But what they didn’t have was a serious candidate to nominate and run. It’s a difficult process to go through and even with the determination, the high chance of failure still scares most away. In the article they talked about how hard it was to even be registered to vote as a third party candidate. Former Louisiana governor said, “Becoming a verified supporter of a candidate proved so challenging that the site's leading contender, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, couldn't even get approved to support himself.”
I understand the want for change and I also believe that proportional voting seems more logical, and more specifically choice voting. But I also believe that our current voting system has done nothing but the U.S. well. We are represented by two great parties that seem to fulfill the majority of our wants and needs to the best of their ability. Third parties are going to add slight variations of opinions, but nothing extreme. They are also now going to be some miracle worker and fix all the problems our government has. I support third parties and their effort to appear on each ballot, but I also support the U.S. as it and the voting system that comes with it.
The single plurality system compared to other systems has many problems. First off, it is extremely difficult for a third party to win in any major election. It affects voter turnout in a negative way. For example, voters assume that their vote in a third party election will not make a difference so they do not bother to go out and vote. As seen in the article, these voters believe they have no power in their state and only voters in the democratic or republican parties maintain power. The other system that is being looked at is proportional representation. This system would allow a larger amount of people to be represented. In the League of Women’s Voters’ article, it shows how this system can help the smaller parties be heard. Both systems have pros and cons, but I do believe that the United States should move away from the single plurality system and move towards proportional representation because it will look at what the American people want and not just what the large parties want.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing and contrasting the different avenues of representation you will see pros and cons of each. The points made by some of my classmates emphasizes the belief that the current system is and needs to be fixed. I question whether that is the case or is it just an example of old adage "the grass is always greener on the other side." Our current single member district system ensures that every area of the states gets one sort of representation. Although it was pointed out that this creates issues such as gerrymandering and unnecessary government expenditures. Well a proportional system would make gerrymandering unnecessary, it wouldn't have an impact on the uses of tax dollars. Third parties undoubtedly are at a disadvantage when it comes to the single member district systems. Does that mean we should change our entire representation process? The seamless transition of power in the United States has been a key in keeping together our country. That transition has been able to happen in part to to how unimportant third parties have been. The two major parties view every election in terms of a win or a loss. They know its not the end of the world if they lose one election, when the next election roles around they have another shot. For third parties every election is of massive importance. Some states give campaign money to parties that receive a small percentage of the popular vote. By doing this they encourage third parties to go get as many votes as possible. Other states don't let third parties on the ballot unless they get a certain number of signatures and can only stay on the ballot the following elections if they receive a small percent of the votes. These barriors of entry are a much larger problem for third parties than anything. Is our system flawless? No. Are the other systerms flawless? No. Should we change our system? No.
ReplyDeleteSingle Plurality System says in the article “plurality candidates can often win a seat when more people voted against them than for them.” This like my own personal outlook on voting asks the question does my vote really count? Or what is the point of even registering to vote? Further on in the article it talks about “wasted votes,” when a candidate receives 47 percentile but loose those are considered wasted votes, which is very discouraging for many voters like myself. Plurality system has many issues but is very easy for people to understand. The two majority system is the most clear for me personally to understand because it is simple and to the point. You vote and the top two move forward to compete again one another, which shows the people that their votes really do count. Along with the other systems, majority system has its issues. Expenses run high when you are doing a bracket system, which requires two elections. These two systems are the most comprehendible systems for people to understand but I would lean more towards majority system.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen in course material and different readings I can say I don't believe there should be a change in legislative elections. the system in place has worked and has been proven to work for the nation. Instead the issues are with voter turnout, lack of involvement or informed voters. Voter attendance and what they know about each party affects all parties, and by having more individuals show up on election days could allow third parties to be equal contenders for legislature. another issue small parties have is having the their voice heard. Not having your goals be known is one thing but when people show up and don't even know your name on the ballot or who you are leaves little chance of a vote from even the most non informed voter. success and equal opportunity may not ever possibly without first taking steps into the direction of having everyone heard.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should move away from the single member plurality system because it doesn't give third parties a chance more or less. I don't believe that as voters, we should have to make ourselves pick the lesser of two evils simply because we may 100% agree with a third party candidate that we know has no chance to actually get elected. I think this is why so many people have an issue with our government because they aren't happy with how things are being conducted but believe they don't have any way to fix that. Third party candidates currently face issues with funding, so they are unable to get the media coverage that they need and are sometimes left out of debates. How are we suppose to learn anything about their views if we never see or hear from them? When it comes to running our country, having the most money shouldn't be what gets you a seat in my opinion but rather having good political views and being knowledgeable.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with some of my classmates that I think we should move to a proportional system. I think this system would better represent everyone being that the people would have someone in a seat that shares their views. For example, if your going to buy a new house, would you want a realtor to show you two houses that you must settle for one of them or show you a bunch of different houses? Having different choices would most likely encourage more people to vote because personally I know people who don't vote simply because they don't agree with either democrats or republicans, so if there are a few more names and parties represented on the ballots there will probably be a better turnout on election day. This would also be beneficial because it removes the issue of gerrymandating and incentives to exclude third parties from media coverage and debates, thus allowing us to learn more about them. That being said, I think that moving towards a proportional system would be better for this country and allow more people to vote according to their views and be represented, even if by a smaller group, the way they want to be.
Like other, I have mixed feelings about which system would be best for our country. Being a third party supporter myself, I automatically gravitate towards a proportional representation system in order to at least have a representative. However, the issue I see with the proportional representation system in the possibility of the lack of a majority. Although individually I want the government to do less and be less involved than it is, I can understand the need to make decisions to benefit the majority of citizens. Making a needed change could become extremely difficult in a proportional representational system because of the possibility of having so many different parties with various and conflicting interests. I feel that every decision would require someone to compromise what they feel is right. I definitely feel that a change needs to be made to better represent third parties (as they are growing in the United States), but I'm unsure of what that change should be. I don't think there's enough evidence to convince me that a proportional representation system is our best option, and I don't like the idea of conducting a large experiment. For now, I think we should stick with what (kind of) works, and continue to slowly integrate third parties into our political system WHILE maybe conducting smaller experiments with state or local government in relation to changing our voting system.
ReplyDeleteThe third party candidates seem to already start a couple steps behind during election time. When running the candidate most likely runs on a particular basis of disagreence with the other two parties or candidates. This can allow the third party member to be more susceptible of the downplaying’s that occur. The thought put in our, the voters head, is why vote for the third party member? The want for this to happen often occurs because the ability for the third part member to pull votes from the other two candidates which can result in the loss of a election by the two main parties. The single member plurality I feel can best represent the wants of the people. In voting for members of such, you are able to endorse ideas of the individual rather than the interest of political parties. The ability to communicate the wants of the all is more important than appealing to the greater areas of populace. In diving down the rabbit hole of political party hierarchy, who has the wants and need of the voters in mind? The disconnected, interest-driving parties I feel have lost their way. We have lost our ability to vote for the people the share our interests and have got to line ourselves that somewhat share those interests. The more, the merrier I say…..
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is very mixed when it comes to deciding between the two due to the fact that I believe the single-member system seems to discourage voter turn out. Most citizens who don’t vote think that their one vote doesn’t matter or they don’t see how their one vote makes a difference within the voting system. The two parties have very large opposing opinions that could discourage the voters because they may not disagree with one sides idea over the others side. It’s a large spectrum that both parties are covering which may leave the voter divided between the two parties and their ideas. Yet we’re encouraged to vote so we are engaging in what happens in our state or local government. One of the problems with the single member representation is that it gives all its power to one party instead of dividing it up evenly. There are many reasons for why the plurality type election seems to be the better of the choices but that doesn’t mean it always will be. Because in a proportional representation, every vote counts and they don’t discourage people from coming to vote. Even if they received only one percent it’s better then receiving nothing, this gives the third party member a chance to have a voice and be shown during elections so that voters know who they are. Although, today in the United States third parties are almost nonexistent when running for elections. Proportional representation I feel would be a better suit for the U.S because it would encourage more voters and third parties would finally have a chance. We think that our vote actually counts but what if we wanted that third party to win and their name wasn’t even on the ballot? I think our government is biased when it come to third parties during elections. There should be a cap on how much each party is allowed to use because the biggest issue for third parties is not having enough money to promote themselves when trying to get their name out there for people to know who they are and what they stand for. I believe that if we all actually knew more about these third parties we would agree more with them then the others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of the class, that the United States government should switch from a single-member plurality system to a proportional representation system. Although the two-party system worked for us in the past, I feel as though it no longer encompasses the values and needs of the citizens of America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsey Tolliver, that it is extremely concerning at the amount of “wasted votes”, or, votes that simply do not count for anything. That doesn’t seem to truly represent the true wants and needs of the American population.
I think the biggest problem with single member systems was addressed by the aceproject.org, “because of their tendency to over-represent the majority party and under-represent other parties, they cannot produce proportional representation for political parties.” Too many Americans are left out and not represented at the end of the election period. This can lead citizens to feel as though their vote doesn’t count and may eventually cause them to not vote at all.
Overall, I feel that the US should highly consider switching to a proportional representation system in the near future.
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bda02a01.htm
- Amber Seamann
I believe that proportional representation would be better for the U.S. since the third parties barely have a chance. I think everyone’s ideas should be represented rather than just one political party. Political parties are either from one extreme to the other and most of the time people don’t agree with all of their ideas. Proportional representation would also help voter turnout. More people would feel like their vote mattered so they would go. I think something definitely needs to change in the government and proportional representation could be the best opportunity for third parties.
ReplyDeleteI agree that would be the best for third parties. I also think that third parties might have very valid points that the typical parties may not consider, so they should be considered too.
DeleteI agree with many of my classmates comments. Proportional representation would be much better than single-member plurality. Like a lot of the class said, the two party system is outdated. Not everything is black and white, and the same goes for politics. You can't just feel one way, make a choice that you like, and expect it to always work out for the best no matter what. If one person is a member of a certain political party, they might expect the person representing them to have the same views as them, and most of the people in that particular party. If that representative has views more like someone from the opposing party would think on a certain subject, that can lead to problems. If someone picks a representative, and they expect that representative to feel a certain way and they don't, the people might feel betrayed. If they feel like their representative is making a wrong choice they might just give up on voting because even if the person they picked wins, they might not do what the people want. When people feel tricked, or like their vote doesn't matter, then they won't vote. Changing to proportional representation would be better because people would feel more like their opinion matters. They would be more likely to vote. They would see that not everything is black and white, that sometimes there is more than two options for a problem. If we switch to this system, like the paper said, people will feel closer to the representatives, thus making it feel like their opinion is valid and they would be more likely to express their views. If people are happier with their government, then the government might have less problems, therefore it could run more smoothly. These are some of the reasons why I think a proportional representation might be the better choice for today's day in age.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the single member system discourages voter turn out. I simply do not realistically see a third party system working. I think it would take really good diverse candidates on both sides to get together and clash their ideas to combine into a diverse perspective that both sides can agree on. I guess you would call that a libertarian but at the same time, it is not exactly a NEW party, but a BLENDED party.
ReplyDeleteA shift from single member plurality (SMP) to a proportional representation (PR) election system would be beneficial for the United States. Minority representation is diminished by SMP. The paper done by The League of Women Voters notes that representation of "racial and ethnic minorities" is often poor under SMP.
ReplyDeleteRepresentation of the lower class is also lacking due to the shift from labor to capital intensive elections. Elections are bought, and it is difficult for a third party candidate, or any other candidate for that matter, with limited funds to win. The capital intensive impact only helps to widen the gap of minority representation because the elite can donate to whomever will support their views. Classmate Ryan Hall also mentioned that SMP favors the elite. This creates corruption.
The financial campaign advantages such as billboard and TV advertising would be less critical were the election not "winner-take-all". PR allows minority candidates to have the share of the representation that they earned from the voters. By doing this, the system itself solves the problem of "wasted votes" and all voters are represented, not just the winning party. Also, voters are more likely to vote for a third party if they know their vote will be represented, and overall voter turnout would increase as well for the same reason.
The lack of third parties under SMP leads to a greater rift between the two major parties. PR almost forces representatives to work across party lines. Our Congress could certainly benefit from having to actually work together and pass something. Instead, the two parties butt heads and focus more on stopping one another's progress.
Gerrymandering shouldn't be legal to begin with, but under PR it would less vital. The paper makes a great point about the "safe seats" caused by gerrymandering districts. "Nationally, in 41 percent of the state legislature seats in 1998, the smaller of the major parties in the district did not even bother to field a candidate." This statistic amazes me. Immediately, I thought of the cinematic comedy "The Campaign", in which Congressman Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) continuously runs unopposed in his North Carolina district. He is immoral and corrupt but wins regardless because the other party knows they can't win. So, if 41% of a major party didn't see the point in fielding a candidate that year, what chance do third party members have?
I believe that it is time that the U.S. takes a stand and moves towards proportional representation and away from single member plurality elections. With anything, there will always be pros and cons- I believe that with proportional representation the pros outweigh the cons. My first reasoning is so that citizens would have the chance to cast sincere votes for who he or she truly believes. With the single member plurality election, I often find that individuals do not want to vote because their vote doesn’t exactly count, and they do not find that they truly match with the Democratic or Republic party - which leads them to not vote or vote for the lesser of the two evils.
ReplyDeleteThis voting system would also give the citizens more options, which I think would help citizens make better choices when voting. The League of Women Voters papers explained that majority plurality systems often do a bad job representing racial and ethnic minorities - and I believe that groups of citizens in the minority groups need a better chance to be heard and represented to the best of the candidates ability. Geographical representation could also be better by changing to a proportional representation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG_X285UODA
Attached is a video explaining the proportional representation in a very simple but meaningful way. Although it is about the government in Canada and not the U.S., I chose it because it made many good points and was able to keep my attention the whole time, which is very rare.
It is clear that this is a change that will take very long to accomplish, but I believe, along with most of my classmates, that this is a change that the United States government needs to make.
I believe that our government should shift from a single member plurality system of voting, to a proportional representation. Being someone who continues not to vote, I and many other people are unmotivated to vote for many reasons, and the extreme split parties are a big reason. I have many different opinions and morals and feel as though I shouldn't have to choose or compromise certain beliefs to fit a worthy leader. While it may be a process to change, I think it would be one that is well worth it. With a country with such a diverse range of beliefs, our voting system should reflect that and support these differences in a healthier way.
ReplyDeleteI highly agree as I did not vote for the same reason. Changing to the proportional system would help represent all the different beliefs in our country. It seems to be the most appropriate in terms of equally representing the entire United States population.
DeleteThe United States is built upon foundations and many of our traditions have been built up over time. Choosing a political party to be part of and some decide to base their views entirely on this choice. Many people chose to believe and join the party that their parents believe in. I think that it would be difficult to move away from a single member plurality system of voting. In the past it has worked for several generations, so I doubt that anyone would want to change it. I agree that there are positive factors of Proportional Representation. It would be good for voters to have more options and not always have to decide or chose between the lesser of two evils and vote for someone that voter believes is capable of doing the job assigned. There are several factors now keeping the public from "wasting" their votes.If they vote for the opposite major party then the person they don't want elected will not be. Maybe if the country could gradually make an attempt to allow the third party to enter it would be successful, but any instant change isn't possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that single member plurality legislative elections should not be used. Sometimes in the district, we don't have the equal representation that will allow the actual vote to be accepted for heard. In districts, there might be a republican representative for democrats in the districts, which sways the vote to a republican vote or vice-versa. Often the person who wins is determined by these district lines. This results in knowing what political party will be in control of the state and local governments. The system that can be used is proportional representation. This allows the majority of Americans are represented within elections by the actual person the voted for. It would create fairness amongst other third party candidates. It is possible that when people know that proportional representation is being used then voter turnout would increase, I think nominations and election turnout would increase. We would have more people running and more people voting for the candidates.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the fact that we as a political society and system should move away from the single member plurality system. Moving to a new system like the proportional representation system would be a better way to represent a state like West Virginia. In a state like West Virginia change is met with an absolute resistance to it. Because the state has an older way of life and a stricter social structure for most of the state, this change would be seen as a threat to the way of life that West Virginians enjoy. This resistance would need to be educated to be accepted, but like all things it would eventually gain momentum.
ReplyDeleteIn West Virginia the singe plurality system has begun to fail those in which it was intended to serve. As the upcoming election is near a large issue within the state is the "War on Coal". If you have seen the many campaign ads on television all candidates claim a hard stance on coal jobs. Although the overall productivity of coal in West Virginia has increased over the last two decades, the jobs its supposedly creates have drastically decreased. This loss of employment is due to the use of heavy machinery in underground mines and the industrial boom of mountain top removal (or strip mining). The coal in which is mined West Virginia for the most part has a very high sulfur count and cannot be burned in the U.S., so therefore it is shipped to countries like China were environmental laws are not as strict. Eventhough regions which are being mined are small and scattered throughout the state, but every region that is being voted on this election is campaigning for coal jobs. "You basically have the democrats trying to 'out -coal' the republicans." - (Misitch, Dave.)
They have taken a small geographic issue and blown it into a state wide issue. This blinding effect is a direct affect from the single member plurality system, and may not represent everything in which a region needs. With adopting a proportional representation system we would see a more broad representation of constituent issues or ideologies that need addressed. Because the proportional system could better represent the people and allow for a third party to have a say in the political process. The third party would also help decrease the amount of gridlock that is currently taking place within congress and state legislatures because there would be a third party to keep the system in balance. Although there may be a few challenges that arise with transition to this system I believe we are better off with this representation.
- Mistich, Dave. In the Supposed 'War on Coal'. West VIrginia and Kentucky Parallel on Mining Jobs, Politics. http://wvpublic.org/post/supposed-war-coal-west-virginia-and-kentucky-parallel-mining-jobs-politics
Like many of my fellow classmates, I believe the United States should shift from single member plurality and begin heading towards proportional representation. Obviously, this is not a change that can happen overnight as there would be much debate throughout the nation. However, I think this would be extremely beneficial in the long run as it would allow more citizens views to be heard. As a fairly new voter, it was hard for me to decide which political party I would side with. Some of my views side with that of the democrats, and others side with republicans. I considered becoming an independent, but I didn't want to have a wasted vote and our class the other day proved that's exactly what it would've been. I was discussing third parties with another professor recently and we both agreed if there was room to establish contending third parties, there would quite likely be a higher voter turn out as citizens would have more options instead of "the lesser of two evils." While the single member plurality system has worked in the past, it has become outdated and America is due for a more tailored, fitting system, whether that be proportional representation or something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Samuel, It would allow for more citizens personal views to be represented with the great variation there would be represented in legislature. It would be a hard but much needed change in our society.
Delete-Allison Wallace
In the article from the League of Women Voters, the author quotes John Adams when he says that legislatures in the U.S. "should be the exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them." I agree completely with his statement, and believe that a fair way to ensure this would be to switch from a single member plurality election system to a proportional representational system. This is not to criticize the system the United States already uses, because there are definitely benefits of a single member district system, but instead to encourage the use of the proportional representational system.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that majority voting has over any other system of elections is the competitive aspect, which as discussed in the article, is a huge criteria for a well-developed election system. A voter majority justifies the use of government power by legislatures, which can encourage people to vote. It also encourages geographical representation, which can ensure local concerns will be addressed. Another added benefit is the simplicity of the election, the person with the most votes wins. However, there are many negative aspects of this system which can potentially outweigh the good.
Like I previously mentioned, it is extremely difficult for third parties to be elected in a majority vote. In fact, in almost all situations, when voting in a single member plurality system, the majority of the votes cast will end up being considered a "wasted vote," which in turn discourages votes. This then makes it difficult for politicians to claim their right to govern because of the little participation by the citizens. There is also potential for manipulation by the already in office legislatures, for example gerrymandering is a way they can ensure that their party will remain in office. By moving to a proportional representation system of election, these can all be avoided.
By having the number of seats a party wins be proportional to the amount of support from the voters, the voters will have a fair, equal chance of being represented, which in turn will encourage voter turnout. Minorities will have more say in their representation, which will then protect the rights that they are granted as citizens. Instead of having one party as the majority, a proportional representation promotes a government coalition, which then prevents radical and abrupt changes every time a new party takes over the majority. Parties may also nominate several candidates, which eliminates the problem of the candidates running on the platform that will get them to win, not what they actually believe.
The chance for third party representation is what gives proportional representation its strongest argument. Because third parties have the chance to win, it encourages all parties to run for office, when in a single member plurality some parties don't even put up a candidate because they have such a slim chance of winning majority. Although third parties are seen as "waste votes" in a majority vote, in a proportional representation, they could be seen as providing more benefits than anything else.
Third parties often call attention to ignored issues, and put pressure on the major parties. In the late 1800s when the Populist Party emerged, it was the first time any third party ever challenged the Democrat and Republican parties enough to really make a change. It led to the Democrat party adopting many Populist ideas, and even led to the new policy of direct election of senators. James Madison, a supported of third parties said "...when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chances for oppression, factionalism, and non skeptical acceptance of ideas decreases." Like he said, third parties give citizens the option of voting for a party that better fits their ideas, especially when the two major parties do not. If you are voting and do not agree with either major party, third parties are an excellent way to make sure your ideas are heard.
My opinion on single member plurality system is that it does not give a fair representation of all parties. For one we see a lot of corruption with the single member system. Also we can see where gerrymandering plays a big part in the drawing of the legislature lines done by the current party. The system to me that is the most effective and fair way to decide seats is the proportional representation system. This system is a good thing for all parties mainly because it lets everyone have a say or some what of a representation. Also if you keep this type of system for a long time, it grows parties and interest in representation for all parties as well as funding from different contributors. One negative I can see with the proportional representation system is that with all the parties that would be represented, there wouldn't be enough focus on the big issues with our country. There would be more focus on slighter issues that the littler third parties would want fixed or done then need be. Also if the smaller party has an issue that they would want resolved and the two bigger parties disagree with them, then they still would not get a fair representation of votes for their certain issue.
ReplyDelete~Tyler Tumblin
I believe the United States should move away from the current single member plurality system to a proportional system. The first reason why is because of the wasted votes, I think the percentage of votes should definitely determine the amount of seats that party receives. It doesn't make sense to ignore 49 percent of votes since and only reward 51 percent in the current system we have. I understand that our current system is very easy to understand and its also very voter friendly. However, changing our current system to a proportional system would give the United States equal representation and it make every vote important. Every year there are more citizens who decide not to vote in US elections and I think changing our system to a proportional system would help change that. As many of my classmates said, there are some voters that have the same views of a third party candidate but they don't vote because they know that candidate will not win. Changing the system to proportional would ensure that all votes are counted for and represented equally. A lot of Americans are also very unhappy with the government and I think changing the system to proportional would help change that as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I really think that we should try something new and that people may actually be more active in voting, if they felt like their vote were taken into account.
DeleteI think that the United States should try and switch to proportional representation, because some people do not like the way the other representation has been working. I think it would be a productive way to see if things would change for the better in the way people view politics and being involved. I think that our country has changed in many different ways over the centuries, in the way that people think, the population has grown, and the diversity of people. I think that because of these things, people may be more open to using a different representation. However, I feel like people should want to be involved, no matter what representation the United States has. I feel like it must be really frustrating for third parties and also the people who feel like their votes don't count and maybe we could try a new type of representation to get people excited about legislature issues.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should transition from a single plurality to a proportional representation. Third parties don't get representation in the system we have now, and if it would be changed, they would have more advantages helping them win an election. Third parties would have a better chance at winning an election if they had more coverage helping them get their name out. Some may say third parties are a waste of time, but actually they have more of the same ideas we have than splitting our ideas into two parties. By switching the election systems we would be benefiting the US and the minority parties by giving them a voice in congress.
ReplyDeleteI feel as most of my classmates, that America should move away from single member plurality. Personally the current election process makes it extremely difficult to truly have a say as we should in our government. There is no disputing that if a district is heavily Democratic more likely than not that district will be won by a Democrat. Which presents what I feel to be almost a rigged election. However, people do tend to live in an area where they feel as they fit in cause a saturation of same ideologies and opinions. That saturation will provide for a hostile and difficult attempts to getting a message out if your not with the vast majority of the district. Which leads to parties not even nominating in such districts. From an article I read by Douglas J. Amy of Mount Holyoke College Department of Politics this uncontested election is most common in Texas and Florida as it fluctuate in others. For example, in the 2000 Florida U.S. House elections 43% of the states district elections when uncontested. I personally feel those districts whom were so saturated with one-sided took the democracy away from their citizens living there which is not what America stands for. Yet, it does not surprise me thats how it goes. Why would a party spend exorbitant amounts of money in trying to win something that has clear writing on the wall that your going to lose. America should take steps toward becoming more of a Proportional representation election style. This type of election is much more fair and takes away the “winner take all” aspect. With this election system, everyone’s vote truly does maker. Even if the district is heavily weighted to one side, the minority still have a fighting chance. Say there is ten seats and democrats win 40% republicans win 50% and a third party wins 10%. Each party will have their respected voted amount of seats. Democrats with 4, Republicans with 5 and a third party with 1. This in my eyes gives the most power to the people.
ReplyDeleteLike most of the other posts I agree with my classmates that the US should change to proportional representation and that the US should also move away from single member plurality legislative elections. Single member plurality cannot definitely represent all geographical areas of a state fairly. Single member plurality is focused too much on two parties, so the republicans along with democrats get all of the advantages of this type of system and third parties are often left out completely. I think that changing to proportional representation would eliminate these advantages and every party would have an equal chance in every aspect of the election. Republicans and democrats more often run on multiple issues in an election while some third parties run only on a single issue, so in some cases it is possible that a third party candidate could be elected on one issue and not know what they will do in response to other issues which could be completely different than what your views on a specific topic would be. Rarely the third party has good ideas on these topics but not knowing upfront what someone’s stance is makes it harder to vote for them. Changing to a proportional representation does come with its disadvantages but my opinion is that it has more advantages as far as candidates having the opportunity to better represent everyone in and area and to have more of a voter turnout. Often in single member plurality people feel as if their vote doesn't count so they don't participate in elections but with proportional representation I think this would attract more people to participate in elections and draw in a new group of people who didn’t previously vote. The disadvantage is electing someone that runs on single issue in districts but if there are multiple people from a district running I think that no one could run on a single issue and win because if they don’t cover what another candidate covers then people won’t be sure about what their stance is and in turn won’t vote for them.
ReplyDeleteI think that the current system of single member district plurality we have in place is the best system to have. By having a winner take all aspect, it helps to determine a winner based on the most votes received. Trying to switch to a different system such as proportional representation that places an emphasis on minor parties wouldn't work out as well as single plurality. There is a reason that Third Party candidates don't succeed in the single member district plurality and that has to do with them not being very popular. While some of them have good ideas and issues to run on, many people won't vote for them for a variety of reasons. These include not wanting to vote against your current party and being unsure how they will represent all of your views. Mainly Third Parties complicate things for both Republicans and Democrats. There has been talk about a Conservative Third Party beginning to run because the current Republicans have become to soft and lenient. Even though I am a registered Conservative, I feel that it would ultimately take away only enough votes from the Republicans to help the Democratic party win. Changing systems around could work, but there would be a lengthy feeling out process in order to correct problems that would occur.
ReplyDeleteI think that proportional voting should be tried here in the u.s. I think that the government needs to find a middle ground at some point. We are not getting anything accomplished with these money hungry candidates. I do not vote because I don't believe my opinion and beliefs are being taken into consideration. I like the idea of just voting on specific laws and issues, which might be clouded even with the proportional party. I don't like the one focus idea though. A lot of our government is based on who has the most money so since I'm not one of them what does it matter what I think!
ReplyDeleteThere are many disadvantages to a single-member plurality. I agree that the United States government should consider going from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government. If you are a Democrat in a predominately Republican district, or the opposite, then you are shut out. As mentioned in the League of Women voters, many votes are wasted in plurality systems. These votes do not elect a candidate which then discourages people to even vote. This makes many people feel as if their vote really does not matter and in this case it doesn’t. Where in proportional representation government the number of seats a political party or like-minded group wins in a legislature is in proportion to the amount of its support among voters. This allows minor parties to have a better chance of being represented. Democracy should be about the interests of all the citizens which could help ensure fair representation for racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Single-member plurality denies representation to large number of voters, produces legislatures that fail to accurately reflect the views of the public, discriminates against third parties, and discourages voter turnouts.
ReplyDeleteIn my still rather uneducated opinion I think 1. being a third party candidate doesn't mean that you don't stand a chance in certain elections. Over the last 8 years we have watched technically what is a 3rd party ( The Tea Party) win some major offices as well held both houses at ransom to a degree. In this day and age a third party in certain districts can win and flourish. Second thing to address that in a single member plurality system it ensures that the representative must be held accountable to what happens to his or her region. Robert C Byrd dominated West Virginian politics for years and ensured that this state got as much as he could with his influence. A proportional representation is ok in certain instances but it does allow extreme groups ( Tea Party )in the door. Often as see now it causes some form of indecisiveness and often a compromise is not on the groups agenda when it comes to certain issues.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe the untied states has one of the most well developed voting system compared to other countries in the world, I also believe it is not the best it could be when you look at how third parties are represented in the system. The system makes it nearly impossible for third parties to win an election because of lack of media coverage, money, and a few other reasons. The main publicity of the coverage of elections gets put on the candidates of one of the to main parties (Republican and Democrat). Although I don't believe our system is the best for our country I also believe that the system of proportional representation would not be very sufficient either and could potentially be worse then the system we practice today. Third parties would have a much better chance, but gerrymandering would cause the areas of each political leaders control to not be represented as how the people of that area would support as much and therefor cause greatly decided views and issues between voting districts.
ReplyDeleteI think when the state is broken up into regions it makes more sense because the region can vote for those that represent the things a certain close region needs. These things differ depending on where you go.The system we have now is effective and I believe we shouldn't fix what's not broken. Also, minority parties tend to be very narrow minded and I don't support them because they spend more time on their individual cause then all the things the region needs.
ReplyDeletei think that we should try and move from single member plurality system and onto proportional representation. There are obviously a lot of factors that are the reason for someone not wanting/being able to vote, but i think a big one is that a lot of people feel as if their vote doesnt count. In proportional representation seats in a representative assembly are distributed in proportion to the votes cast, I feel as if this would make people feel as if their vote was worth something. We have already discussed in class how difficult it is for a 3rd party to run and win. By creating proportional representation, 3rd parties could successfully run with diverse perspectives on issues and win. Our nation is diverse in so many ways and everyone should be given the chance to feel as if their opinion on an issue is being represented. There are too many people feeling that they have given "wasted votes" within our two-party system.
ReplyDeleteMoving from the single member plurality system to a proportional or semi-proportional voting system would be a mistake. One argument for the change is that it would increase voter turnout as everyone would feel like their vote is a valuable contribution. While the value of an individual vote would go up, voter turnout itself would see no change in terms of people showing up on election day. In a country where less than 50% of the population participates in elections, making a more complicated voting system would deter just as many voters as it encourages. For every vote gained just as many will be lost in a complicated proportional system that the average American does not have the time or desire to understand.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for the sake of argument say voter participation swells and people turn up at the polls like never before due to the new proportional system. How would it help to make the government more effective than it already is? There are two possibilities for what the legislature would become. One results in a legislature with 80%-90% of the seats made up of Republicans and Democrats and the final 10%-20% made up of splintered interest group parties. Essentially every aspect of the law making process would remain the same with the 2 major parties dominating on the issues at hand. The independent parties would find their new representation amounting to a swing vote on the major parties issues. The likelihood of such a minority of representatives passing their own legislation against 80% of the governing body is very small.
The other possibility of switching to a proportional voting system would result in a government less capable of accomplishing anything than our current one. With individual voice given so much power, say the major parties splinter into smaller interest groups all with their own ideology. This would result in a legislature where each party would hold anywhere from 5% to 30% of the seats. The assembly would be made up of small minority groups with no party having a majority. Yes, every voice would be heard, but how much is accomplished in a room with everyone screaming for their own interest? Legislation would only be passed in the event of weak coalitions forming that would easily splinter at the smallest hint of dissent. The government would see a gridlock unlike any other in the past where instead of trying to settle a dispute between two parties it would be a summit of 10 to 20 differing opinions.
The single member plurality system has it faults, but it is the best choice for the US. Gerrymandering is an issue, but even with its presence single member plurality gives each geographic area the best chance for a representative who is actually knowledgeable of its issues. Yes, the current system pretty much eliminates independent parties from having a voice in government, but not as much as it seems. This is evident in the different voices within each of the major parties. There are caucuses of interest groups within each major party, which are in a way independent parties themselves. This is shown in the minor movements with each party like the Tea Party within the Republican party and the Populist movement on the Democratic side. This system demands a compromise of differing opinions for anything to be accomplished. Every individual has their own opinion, but it is the gathering and compromising of these opinions that makes effective government. The constitution, which we base our whole government off of, is in its simplest sense a compromise. The proportional system does not demand compromise, which is its greatest failure.
Along with many of my other classmates have concluded, I would agree that a proportional representation system would be the better choice from all the other voting styles. The system we have in place is simply out dated, and along with many other things just needs some changes with the time. Of course with all the systems comes advantages and disadvantages, which are clearly laid out in the article from League of Women Voters, however, the proportional system seems to have the most benefits. Today, our society is full of individual thinkers and having two parties constantly be voted into positions over third parties doesn’t always seem fair. These big parties don’t always have the greater good in mind, as you mentioned in your comment. If the proportional system were to be implemented, as noted in the league of Women Voters, minority representation is more likely to be encouraged. Also, every vote counts in this system and there is no “wasted votes.” With this being said, in class we talked about reasons people will not vote. If people feel their vote actually matters and has an impact, they are more likely to participate in voting. With this system, since all votes count, voter turn out would most likely increase. This system is the most used in the world so clearly it works well and with such an amazing government that the United States has, if we were to implement this system our government would only just get stronger and more American citizens views and ideas would be heard.
ReplyDeleteBoth systems have their obvious pros and obvious cons. Proportional voting, favored by many of my classmates as a way to garner more participation and a larger amount of support - by allowing citizens to step away from the "lesser of two evils" voting method, and vote their own conscious for a change. Although this is true, we also see that in this system - interest groups can have even more power. The smaller a party is, the easier it is for interest groups to have a say in the 5% of the party that makes it into legislation. These small parties can abuse their positions, knowing that they will not gain 60% of a vote; they will sell out for the few votes they can get.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, majority voting supporters back the idea of a more efficient system. If voters single out the best of the best; the two left will try to full represent all people they can so that they will win against the other. This gives you a range of more centrist candidates.
In my opinion, the US should experiment and try Alternative Voting. In this system, when a person goes to the voting booth; he or she will pick out their 1st favorite candidate, 2nd favorite, 3rd favorite, and so on and so forth. In the scenario that the 1st candidate does not receive enough votes, your vote reverts to your second pick. In the end, third parties will have a better chance of becoming nominated (Conservatives may vote Republican, then Libertarian, then Constiutional, then Democrat, then Green; Liberals may vote Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Constitutional, Republican. In this case, Libertarian may win; as voters may agree with that party the most, be it for civil rights or other.)
A quick explanation of this way of voting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&noredirect=1
The United States should switch from single member plurality to proportional representation. A two party system is not ideal for a country with a population as diverse as the US. The current system is a big reason why our country’s government shuts down every time it has to make a decision. In a two party system, you not only vote for one person but also against one person which promotes polarization. There is only one opposing candidate so all of the attacks go to that candidate and it’s party. If there were more parties that better represented the entire population, there would be less mudslinging because there would be too many people running to sling mud. At this point, everything is liberals vs conservatives and I think people are fed up with that. Also, if there were more parties to choose from and proportional representation, people would be more likely to vote because their vote would mean more. Most people just vote for the lesser of two evils, if they vote at all. A more representative group of candidates would give people more reason to vote instead of it being a race between dumb and dumber. As stated in the blog post, a two party system means one party has control of the senate and/or the house. This means that either the country shifts completely to the party in control or the government is gridlocked depending on the party alliance of the president. For instance, if congress is controlled by Republicans and Obama tries to legalize marijuana, the bill would not pass because it would be voted down by congress. Either nothing gets done or everything the president wants gets done. Adding in third parties would help dilute the opposing opinions of democrats and republicans making it easier to compromise, prevent on party from having all the power and keep the government in motion. While all of this sounds great, I don’t think the country will ever be able to let go of the two party system. As much as we hate the polarization, the prospect of our own party being able to have all the power is better than no party having all the power. Until we can collectively let go of that greed and realize that one group having all the power is never a good thing in government, we will be stuck with single member plurality.
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should switch to proportional representation, because as many of my classmates have stated, the single member representation is outdated. Proportional representation has been widely adopted because it avoids an outcome in which some people win representation and the rest are left out. Proportional representation gives voters more choices, because typically they are forced to either waste their vote, go for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all. In the following article,http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/PropRep_WhyNeed.html, it states that even 60% of Americans would like to see other parties emerge to challenge the Democrats and Republicans. With the option of more parties, people would be more likely to vote because they would be more likely to find a candidate or party that they agree with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the previous posts, the single member plurality system is not the most efficient. Most of the time we have the divided house of Republicans and Democrats, just fighting over an issue, both unwilling to compromise and meet in the middle. If we used proportional representation, the third parties would be able to act as a mediator to the two major parties, voicing their opinions, and hopefully be able to come up with a final decision in the house. Additionally, using proportional representation would allow people to vote for the party of their choice and not have to vote for one of the parties closest to their views, and they would be able to bring up some of the smaller issues that the major parties overlook.
ReplyDeleteLike the rest of my classmate’s posts, I think that the U.S should transition to proportional representation. The way the US has things set up at the moment does not allow for fair representation among third parties. If the US were to change to proportional representation, this would allow third parties to get more coverage and to get their name out there. Plus, I feel as if through the system we have now, people are not being represented fairly, and that it can sometimes be relatively easy to decide who is going to win an election based on what district they are in and if that district is republican or democrat. More often than not, a republican district will elect the republican running and same with democrat districts. By switching over to proportional representation, third parties would have more of a chance and it would make elections appear to be more fair.
ReplyDeleteI think that our government should move to a proportional representation government from single member plurality. I think that if third party candidates had as many opportunities as the other parties they would be more successful. The two party system has worked but I feel like our society is evolving so much and our government has to change with it. The two party system is not getting to much accomplished that is expected of them. There is no way to know how, really our nation will react to it but I believe forced coalition, as Kenser discusses, is a good option. There is a lot to be said and people have a lot of different opinion and now, we're forced to agree with one of two different people who are more extreme than our society is. My opinion, on the other hand is very biased because I have had the opportunity to vote a few times before and I have taken those opportunities, however I have never voted for the either of the main parties because of the fact they were both too extreme for my liking and I did not feel that they were the best fit for what our nation has become.
ReplyDeleteI think that I am going to have to go ahead and agree with most of the posts I've seen on here and say that the United States should focus on shifting from the plurality majority voting system to the proportional voting system. The U.S. has been using the plurality majority system for a long time now, and it is what we are used to, but there are too many conflicting opinions and ways of thinking in our society nowadays that need to be looked at from all angles. Republicans have their views, Democrats likewise. Also all of the smaller parties play their roles as well. In a proportional voting system, all of these parties and viewpoints will have a chance to be represented in a political system instead of having one political party win a vote all alone. Also, the plurality majority voting system discourages some people from voting because they feel that their votes are being wasted, or that their votes are going unnoticed. And, as I saw someone else on here mention, people are not always fully Republican or Democrat with their views, so not everyone is dead set on who to vote for. The proportional way of voting helps voters expand their views and opinions appropriately so that everyone has a chance to hold a position in vote. It is important for districts to have a political office with multiple parties views so no one feels like their opinions are being cheated. All issues can be discussed fair and square rather than one party making an ultimate decision based on their typical views. The proportional voting system just seems like a way for everyone to become more involved and satisfied with the way our political systems work. In theory, it seems like a win for everyone when compared to plurality majority voting.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States there are major areas of our voting practices that need to be changed. I believe there are still smaller areas of the country that can benefit from single member plurality but on a larger scale for the federal government we should make a shift toward a mixed member proportional representation. It would allow more room for compromise. As In the federal voting system now, people are often unsure about how their views would be represented in a legislature that is being run by majority of the opposite party as theirs. With the MMP system, it allows more topics to be discussed and worked out together between parties versus just being tossed back and forth and not being worked out to better serve everyone. Although it does allow for minor parties to be represented, it is only still a small part because it would just be allowing more compromise between the two large parties. Which in turn would be a middle ground between keeping what we already have and completely changing the system. It would minimize and almost eliminate wasted votes because everyone’s vote toward a representative would allow for potential to have seats.
ReplyDeletehere is a quick video of how MMP works simply,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ1gpLr9ftI
I agree with the vast majority of our classmates, that proportional representation would solve many current issues regarding our voting system. Proportional representation characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reelected proportionately in the elected body. Moreover, all votes contribute to the result, not just a plurality of them. If we were to shift more to proportional representation, this means there will be no more districts, or zones of multi member districts; no fixed minimum quotas and no split shifts where members are elected for overlapping terms. I believe this would be the more fair and equal system to shift to, for both the candidates and the people.
ReplyDeleteWith proportional representation, the make up of the nations legislature will be in proportion to the concerns of the people and every constituent actually gets their candidate elected and able to represent them and speak for the good of the nations forum. Another positive outcome of proportional representation would be the dramatic decrease in amount of taxpayer’s money going into elections. The campaigns would be cheaper with regards to both printing and administration as there will be only one common ballot paper for the whole country.
Now, do I really think that this day will come? Not really. Taylor Foster made a great observation. She said, "Many people chose to believe and join the party that their parents believe in. I think that it would be difficult to move away from a single member plurality system of voting. In the past it has worked for several generations, so I doubt that anyone would want to change it." It is very challenging to change something that has been around for so many generations. Though the two party systems has always worked for society in the past, I feel that as it no longer captures the values and needs of the citizens voting. Also, the cost of an election to parties and their supporters will be cheaper as advertisements and promotional material will be the same throughout the country. Overall, I believe that this will be more respectful to the democratic system that our founding fathers developed, and giving voters more of a voice.
I believe that single transferable votes would be the most efficient and non-bias system to use for voting. This is where voters rank candidates in order of preference. This will also produce excellent proportionality while enabling votes to elect independent candidates
Based on the arguments presented in the paper I have to agree that a proportional system of representation is something the US should definitely consider. For years and years the plurality system of representation has almost completely denied third parties from playing any role in government. The initial post and the paper both point out that when you introduce several minor parties into the system, coalitions form and things become much more chaotic and unstable. This fact was presented as a negative but I think it could be viewed as a positive change for the current US political system. Many people are outraged at how inept and inefficient the current US Congress seems to be, passing very few bills and unable to reach bi-partisan agreement on much of anything. As a result of this, Congress accomplishes very little each time they convene, and important issues like government budget caps are debated down to the wire(sometimes forcing a government shutdown) because the parties simply cannot agree. I think throwing a wrench into this ineffectual system would at least spur Congress towards some kind of action and prevent the constant deadlocks.
ReplyDeleteI think minor parties can be an important addition to our government because there are many, many Americans who are eligible to vote but belong to a political minority whose views will never be represented in government no matter who you vote for. For example, Mitt Romney lost some support when he moved his policies towards the middle during his campaign. There are republicans out there with similar views close to the center, but the majority of the party favors policies to the right, and so this is the view that is represented in government. By allowing proportional representation, every voting American has an opportunity to see their views represented in government. Voter participation might actually increase if Americans in marginalized political groups actually felt like their vote had meaning and could impact the election.
As many of my classmates have stated, moving towards a proportional representation system seems that it would allow for candidates to have a fair opportunity when running for state legislature. It doesn't make sense to have a vote in the first place if all of the votes don't count for the same percentages according to the candidate being chosen. Single-member plurality encourages voters to chose the candidate that is most exposed and likely to be picked. It almost seems like most people just like to be on the winning side, so as soon as they start to notice that one candidate is being favored, they too start to show them support. Third party members don't get enough recognition in my opinion. It's not right to practically exclude these kind of candidates from winning simply because people fear that their vote isn't being put to good use. What ends up happening most of the time are votes being submitted that don't accurately represent the true values and beliefs of the citizens of the state. We shouldn't promote candidates solely because they are a familiar face. It would be better to have some sort of evenly distributed funds for all candidates to advertise with. Also, the amount of exposure each one is allowed to get should be limited. Third-party representatives need to have more of an impact on voting. They basically go unnoticed and in my opinion that is a totally skewed way to practice the way that people become members of our governmental bodies. We need to find a way to discourage voters from constantly just "going with the flow" and supporting only those candidates that instantly appear to be the popular selection. We should try to dig deeper and find out as much as we can about each candidate and why they believe they will serve a positive purpose as one of our leaders. It's idiotic to keep letting votes be cast with the bias that they are controlled with. Every candidate deserves a fair chance and shouldn't be overlooked just because they aren't dominant in historical or financial terms.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this article that addresses whether or not proportional representation would be a useful strategy when performing governmental elections...
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm
The article stresses the idea that gerrymandering is a manipulate process and should be prohibited from using to promote candidates. The author also agrees that attacking or antagonizing other candidates in order to influence positive attitudes towards a different candidate is unjust. By removing gerrymandering from this process we can eliminate uncontested voting. Overall, a proportional representation system would be ideal in order to ensure the fairness in the results of the elections of or state legislatures.
In the paper it is stated that "Minor parties have a much better chance of being represented in a PR legislature. In a five-seat district less than 20 percent of the vote is enough to win a seat, and with ten seats less than 10 percent is required.". It seems as though there is definitely a trend going that the current system that we have here in the US is increasingly becoming outdated, and with good reason. As American, why should we have to choose the lesser of two evils? There is plenty that can be said in an argument when the topic is deciding which system is better and should be used. In my eyes I believe the quote above says it all, with that being said yes I do believe we should move towards a proportional system. As americans I don't see how we can continue to suppress the third party because they too have the right to have their input. Yes, the proportional system can have it's faults, but there comes a time when things need to change when the current system has allowed what I consider a cheat code in gerrymandering for so long...and also what would really be so wrong with getting more people to the polls and involved with American politics?
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with moving away from a single member plurality system. Largely because many legislatures are already very divided on the state and national levels. If you look at a government structure that uses a proportional representation system you can see how it would make government less productive. The British parliament is a perfect example. I'm not saying that their government is inefficient but that it requires too much collusion in order to get a coalition to have a majority. In their legislative body there are many different parties. There is a party that is fairly conservative and one that is fairly liberal. However, there are smaller parties that have their own beliefs but follow some kind of tangent with the larger conservative or liberal party. As we have learned in class these third parties take votes away from these larger parties and make it hard for one party to attain an overall majority in the legislature. Therefore, not only does these more significant parties have to cut across party lines in order to get their agenda achieved, but they also have to collude with the smaller parties wants and needs in order to get a majority over the other, much larger opposition party. Another problem we might see with a proportional representation system is the overrepresentation between rural and urban voters. The state of New York would be a perfect example. Seeing as how the majority of the states population is in New York City, those that live in the upstate and rural areas might have parties that get very little representation over those parties that are affiliated with the city areas. Since many states have large cities where the majority of their population is centered around, the misrepresentation in the state of New York could be the same case for the other fifty states. This would drastically take power away from those states that geographically are agricultural based but have a major city. To conclude, it is better to stay with a single member district because it helps to maintain a more efficient government. Those third parties that may be single issue or have more specified beliefs will eventually be working with the party that they take vote away from. Many candidates in a single member system conform their platforms and beliefs to those majority people that they represent. There will always be divided government but creating more of it allows for greater inefficiencies.
ReplyDeleteI, like many of the other students, believe that our current system of single party plurality is flawed. The current system, as it stands wastes most of the votes and does not give an accurate representation of all of the voters.
ReplyDeleteThis is contrary to what at least one of our founding fathers believed. Based on this passage out of the linked article...
"John Adams, one of our founding fathers, expressed this principle when he noted that legislatures in the United States "should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them.""
In order to give a better representation of the voting body, I believe a proportional representation or immediate runoff system would be better. In either of these the voters would have more options and would have the opportunity to feel that their votes matter.
This is a very large issue in the current system, due to the fact that a majority of the votes are " thrown away " because majority rules. This can lead the people to become disheartened and less likely to show up at the polls.
The "better" systems mentioned have a chance to represent the minority. However, I believe that it would take a break down of the current system and an overhaul of the entire government and voter mentality in order to make the change.
None of the systems however are without flaws and each should be weighed for merit within the context that it is implemented. As another student pointed out, maybe the "cookie cutter" mentality is not best and every state/district should implement the system that best suits their voters.
As most of my classmates would agree I believe that we should switch from a single member plurality system to a proportional representation government. Proportional representation is better system because it gives a more equal representation to all the parties, especially the minor parties. Another advantage to a proportional representation system is it leads to votes that actually count and more voters will want to participate. I agree with my fellow classmate, Lindsey Tolliver quoted that “Based on the U.S. 2012 presidential election there was only a 64% voter turnout.” So using this system would be great for voters because they will feel like their vote actually matters and bring up the percentage of voter turnout. According to a news article written by “The Week”, there are many pros and cons people feel about switching to a proportional representation system and the current system we have now. Some of the disadvantages of our current system are that it’s unrepresentative and gives all the power to one party. One of the disadvantages people feel with a PR government is that the extremist parties will gain control of the legislature. But in the end I feel a proportional representation government would be the best system to switch to because it would make voters feel like they actually have a voice, and it would bring equal representation to all the parties in the legislature.
ReplyDeletein my opinion although there are some flaws in the proportional voting system, it is a way better option than the system we have now. i think the main problem with out system right now is many people feel like their vote wont count, and with a third party candidate voting for him or her can help out the person you want to win the least, for example in the 2000 presidential election where many believe al gore lost because of the votes the third party member took away from him. this system will help people feel more comfortable with voting, since it is extremely tough for third party candidates to even have a chance i believe that this system will help them even the playing field because they can get their voices heard whether it is in debates, commercials, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should shy away from the two-party system so our politicians aren't so white and black on certain issues.. With only two parties, that have very different in opinions, it is hard to come up with decisions in government that we are all happy with. Also, this system does not give the people a fair representation If our government change our voting system from a single-member plurality to a proportional representation government, we would be able to get more third party representatives in government. This would help politicians make decisions because the third parties would have republicans or democrats backing them up. The League of Women Voters’ paper stated that proportional representation system makes it easier for minority parties to be elected. The paper gave an example of a 10-seat body only needing less than 10 percent of the vote, which is a lot easier than trying to gain the majority. With this system, I believe more people will have more representation and they won't have to settle for voting for the person closest to their views. This kind of representation may even increase voter turnout because more people would now believe that their voice matters.
ReplyDeleteI understand that both the election systems have their benefits. It seems to me that the proportional representation system creates some logistic issues but would more accurately represent people's views in the legislature and possibly lead to more political activity from members of our society because this way they feel that they are not just simply " choosing the lesser of the two evils". At the same time though the single member plurality assures that more of the nation is backing one candidate. Important to also consider in this question is which system leads to more partisanship or less. More parties could mean more open dialogue in our government which is always a good thing. Also a wider variety of opinions is represented which leads to better compromise for all. The proportional election system puts more power into each vote because the votes can still be counted for a candidate even if they do not take the majority of the vote. An additional problem facing the single-member plurality system is that gerrymandering becomes an even more powerful tool. It allows the single-members to cater there views to a specific community. Which does two things, provides blinders for candidates on issues because they simply want to become popular in their districts. This also enables these members to get the help that these smaller communities need because a federal representative is focused on their needs.
ReplyDeleteSingle Member plurality voting has always been used in this country but has become the subject of criticism from many frustrated voters. This election process favors a two-party system and discourages many third-party candidates from being elected or even running in the first place. A "winner-takes-all" election causes voters to feel that they must choose the lesser of two evils, rather than the candidate they may actually truly trust because they know that he/she may have no chance of winning.
ReplyDeleteThere has been so much stipulation recently in this country about the ever-widening gap between poor, ethnic minorities and the few elite, who seem to dominate modern politics. The single member plurality system contributes to this because the vast majority is just too hard to defeat.
Like many of my classmates, I feel that America should make the move towards proportional representation voting systems. This allows third-party candidate's ideas and initiatives to be considered and represented. I think the SMP system is the cause for much of the corruption within U.S politics and proportional representation may be just the change we need.
Another system that caught my eye within the League of Women Voters article is Instant Run-Off Voting. In this process, voters rank their choice of candidates from first to second and so on. Then, the candidates with the least amount of votes are dropped and ballots with that candidate as #1, take their #2 choice. This is good for third-party candidates because their supporters can vote for them with confidence knowing that their #2 choice will be heard if there's not enough support for their first. It also discourages negative campaigning because candidates run the risk of being ranked last by supports of candidates the publicly condemn. San Francisco implemented this method in city elections in 2004 and has experienced much success.
I believe that the third party is rapidly growing in the U.S. voting system. I have spoken with many people who go to the polls and vote for third party candidates. Although third party candidates are no where as strong presently as the major two parties, if this upturn in third party support continues to grow, it will not be long until they are as strong as the other two.
ReplyDeleteI feel as a country we need to make the move towards a proportional representation system. This would help get rid of the two giant parties having control over everything and making it impossible for little parties to gain any support. It seems to be a cycle; that the 3rd parties are little and powerless. because they have no support through the media or funding etc. And they have no support because they are such little powerless parties. Something is needed to break the cycle and I believe that it is proportional representation. This would all help certain smaller parties to gain support exponentially each election. If 10 % of the votes go to them then they get 10% of the seats, then maybe next year that number grows to 18% of the votes etc. Our current single member plurality system just isn't getting the job done. Each year we have the same candidates from the big two parties fighting for a spot where really, both sides could probably have a better candidate, it is just the lesser of two evils. As "Amber Ringer" said above, we need to lessen the lesser side of two evils. And I believe a proportional system would do just that. It would allow third parties to have their say in government and gain more support, so we could some more independents own seats in the house. However; there would need some sort of limit like an actual vote count to set a minimum number of votes needed for a third party to be given a proportion of the seats. Other wise we would have the "Who Knows What Party" having a seat in the house with .01% of the votes. Just as an example. If we could put something like that into place, then I think it would eventually be a good thing for a our country and would help the state of our government in the long run. It would do this because it would allow third parties or independents to have a little bit of control which is only fair in my opinion, if they win some votes then that means someone, somewhere, wants them to be a representative in our government.
ReplyDeleteOne bit i liked from the League of Women Voters was the instant Run Off voting. In theory, this could be a good way to get third party members some more recognition and more votes. With this system, the ballots with the candidates ranked lowest with the least amounts of votes drop that candidate and automatically consider the number 2 choice on the ballot. To me, this a great way to get third party attention because most likely a lot of times that number choice could be a third party candidate.
Remember, this is not about getting some small local extremist party that barely has a name into office and having a share in our government, it is about getting those right on the cusp, like independents or large 3rd party movements over the edge and into office. The only thing holding them back is current system of elections and representation.
As many of the other students said they believe that our current system of single party variety is inconsistent. The current system wastes most of the votes and does not give an accurate representation of all of the voters. This is contrary to what at least one of our founding fathers believed. "John Adams, one of our founding fathers, expressed this principle when he noted that legislatures in the United States "should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them.""
ReplyDeleteThe better systems mentioned have a chance to represent the minority. However, I believe that it would take a break down of the current system and an overhaul of the entire government and voter mentality in order to make the change. People need to be the change or no change will be in effect. None of the systems however are without flaws and each should be weighed for value within the situation that it is applied.
In order to give a better representation of the voting body, I think a comparative symbol or immediate runoff system would be better. In either of these the voters would have more options and would have the opportunity to feel that their votes actually due in fact matter. This is a very large issue in the current system, due to the fact that a majority of the votes are “thrown away” because majority rules. This can lead the people to become disheartened and less likely to show up at the polls. I also think this is one reason why people do not vote in the first place because they think their vote will not matter or make a difference in society.
I agree on the fact that we as a political society and system should move away from the single member plurality system. Moving to a new system like the proportional representation system would be a better way to represent a state like West Virginia. In a state like West Virginia change is met with an absolute resistance to it. Because the state has an older way of life and a stricter social structure for most of the state, this change would be seen as a threat to the way of life that West Virginians enjoy. This resistance would need to be educated to be accepted, but like all things it would eventually gain momentum.
ReplyDeleteIn West Virginia the singe plurality system has begun to fail those in which it was intended to serve. As the upcoming election is near a large issue within the state is the "War on Coal". If you have seen the many campaign ads on television all candidates claim a hard stance on coal jobs. Although the overall productivity of coal in West Virginia has increased over the last two decades, the jobs its supposedly creates have drastically decreased. This loss of employment is due to the use of heavy machinery in underground mines and the industrial boom of mountain top removal (or strip mining). The coal in which is mined West Virginia for the most part has a very high sulfur count and cannot be burned in the U.S., so therefore it is shipped to countries like China were environmental laws are not as strict. Eventhough regions which are being mined are small and scattered throughout the state, but every region that is being voted on this election is campaigning for coal jobs. "You basically have the democrats trying to 'out -coal' the republicans." - (Misitch, Dave.)
They have taken a small geographic issue and blown it into a state wide issue. This blinding effect is a direct affect from the single member plurality system, and may not represent everything in which a region needs. With adopting a proportional representation system we would see a more broad representation of constituent issues or ideologies that need addressed. Because the proportional system could better represent the people and allow for a third party to have a say in the political process. The third party would also help decrease the amount of gridlock that is currently taking place within congress and state legislatures because there would be a third party to keep the system in balance. Although there may be a few challenges that arise with transition to this system I believe we are better off with this representation.
- Mistich, Dave. In the Supposed 'War on Coal'. West VIrginia and Kentucky Parallel on Mining Jobs, Politics. http://wvpublic.org/post/supposed-war-coal-west-virginia-and-kentucky-parallel-mining-jobs-politics
I personally feel that the US could definitely pick a different way to deal with this. I think that when you look at the way that many other countries deal with this, it becomes evident that the US should take note. I think that choosing a different system such as a proportional representation would be a smarter decision because it doesn’t leave anybody out when it comes to representing the many different ideas that may exist. Often, voters are quarantined off into choosing candidates that they hadn’t been partial to in the beginning, or still aren’t partial to. Having only two parties of mass representation really shuts out the third parties who still have a high population of voters. I also feel like the main reason that third parties have been so excluded is because if there is one thing that the Democratic and Republican Parties work efficiently together to achieve, it is to create a lack of representation for third parties. A lot of these problems come back to money, and the largely represented parties have the power to do this, upsettingly enough. A proportional system would show more ideas of actual US society, rather then show the strength of each political party during elections. I am sick of hearing people debate over the
ReplyDeleteDemocrats and Republicans and who is going to “win” each year, because I feel that it takes away from the true meaning of the election, which is to listen effectively to what each candidate has to say, rather than create a dual which brings less educated people into the mix out of pure competition. I feel that the single representation that we have today is very typical of our culture who loves sports and has a highly competitive culture because people love to take sides. Showing the Democrat and Republican parties by different colors, having the candidates where their corresponding tie colors, and essentially through the press and media talking so loudly about these two democratic parties rids our country’s governmental election system of it’s intelligence and adds a much too competitive vibe to the elections we hold, in small house elections and also in large.