4 ms·

Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer? We'd be better off if we used proportional representation. Imagine a court cas

Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer? We'd be better off if we used proportional representation. Imagine a court case where all parties to the suit first must pick ONE lawyer to represent all of their competing points of view. That'll work, won't it? Like our representatives, lawyers would put a lot of effort into convincing the parties that they are the right lawyer. And, once elected, ALL the power is at the disposal of that lawyer. He controls the outcome. And he can start collecting bribes. Oh, he'll claim to represent ALL of the people.

simonh 10y ago
> Why try to fix a system... Because perfect really often is the enemy of the good. If a perfect system isn't practically achievable, in the near term at least, is there really no point in making any improvement at all? In any case sometimes the best route to an ideal or near-ideal destinations is one step at a time.
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  That's why I suggested a good system, rather than a perfect one. Dozens of countries already use proportional representation.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Yes, but there's no appetite for a change of that magnitude in the US today. But if PR is your goal, I think a more representative version of the current system is more likely to lead us to that than an increasingly less representative version of it through persistent creeping gerrymandering.
    - stretchwithme 10y ago
      There's only so much appetite for change. I wouldn't want to waste it on a marginal improvement that only benefits people with similar perspectives if they live in the same area.
    - stretchwithme 10y ago
      And switching to proportional representation would help fix lobbyist control of government, which is a huge problem. Ending gerrymandering just changes who is going to serve the lobbyists.
      - stretchwithme 10y ago
        And the appetite for change goes up when there is something worth changing for. Helping a few people in a few districts doesn't do much for most people.
talideon 10y ago
> Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer? Consider it a stepping stone, and the most effective first step: if you have gerrymandered constituencies, you can still end up with non-proportional results with a proportional electoral system. The effect is more proportional than you'd have with FPTP, but its still open to abuse. Ideally, you really want both non-gerrymandered constituency borders and a proportional voting system. To understand why, take a look at the Hungarian parliamentary elections in 2014 and how, even with a proportional voting system, gerrymandering and other mechanisms were used to give a non-proportional result in favour of Fidesz.
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  More of a pebble. I would prefer if political units were self-organizing and not arranged by leaders at all. In Switzerland, a part of a canton can form a new canton if it prefers or merge with a neighboring canton. This rarely happens, perhaps because the current arrangement is good enough. And the incentive to take an area for granted is minimal.
  - talideon 10y ago
    Given the current constitutional make-up of the US, it's a stepping stone. Swiss-style federalism would be a pretty radical departure, and likely wouldn't even be constitutionally possible.

simonh 10y ago

> Why try to fix a system... Because perfect really often is the enemy of the good. If a perfect system isn't practically achievable, in the near term at least, is there really no point in making any improvement at all? In any case sometimes the best route to an ideal or near-ideal destinations is one step at a time.

stretchwithme 10y ago
That's why I suggested a good system, rather than a perfect one. Dozens of countries already use proportional representation.
- simonh 10y ago
  Yes, but there's no appetite for a change of that magnitude in the US today. But if PR is your goal, I think a more representative version of the current system is more likely to lead us to that than an increasingly less representative version of it through persistent creeping gerrymandering.
  - stretchwithme 10y ago
    There's only so much appetite for change. I wouldn't want to waste it on a marginal improvement that only benefits people with similar perspectives if they live in the same area.
  - stretchwithme 10y ago
    And switching to proportional representation would help fix lobbyist control of government, which is a huge problem. Ending gerrymandering just changes who is going to serve the lobbyists.
    - stretchwithme 10y ago
      And the appetite for change goes up when there is something worth changing for. Helping a few people in a few districts doesn't do much for most people.

talideon 10y ago

> Why try to fix a system that denies most people the representative they prefer? Consider it a stepping stone, and the most effective first step: if you have gerrymandered constituencies, you can still end up with non-proportional results with a proportional electoral system. The effect is more proportional than you'd have with FPTP, but its still open to abuse. Ideally, you really want both non-gerrymandered constituency borders and a proportional voting system. To understand why, take a look at the Hungarian parliamentary elections in 2014 and how, even with a proportional voting system, gerrymandering and other mechanisms were used to give a non-proportional result in favour of Fidesz.

stretchwithme 10y ago
More of a pebble. I would prefer if political units were self-organizing and not arranged by leaders at all. In Switzerland, a part of a canton can form a new canton if it prefers or merge with a neighboring canton. This rarely happens, perhaps because the current arrangement is good enough. And the incentive to take an area for granted is minimal.
- talideon 10y ago
  Given the current constitutional make-up of the US, it's a stepping stone. Swiss-style federalism would be a pretty radical departure, and likely wouldn't even be constitutionally possible.