3 ms·

I think you and OP are talking past each other. A purely proportional voting system is not a good idea for the reasons you mentioned. That's why a lot of countr

by jcfrei 3y ago

I think you and OP are talking past each other. A purely proportional voting system is not a good idea for the reasons you mentioned. That's why a lot of countries including the US have a bicameral system: One where regions/states are represented proportionally and one where seats are distributed equally. I believe OPs critic is wrt the district based voting system of the House of Representatives. Having a winner takes it all system per district seat is a really bad idea and just a result of a limited understanding of election dynamics at that time and some restrictions how election results could be communicated before the advent of telegraphy: A proportional system forces states to first collect all votes from all districts (a huge task for a state like Texas when only horses and a few rail roads are available for transportation) then collecting and counting the votes at the capital of the state and then sending messengers back to each district to announce results. When each district calculates their winner independently this problem is alleviated. Nowadays it's clear that such a system will inevitably create a two party system. The fact that the president is also elected by an electoral college (which in most states is also a winner takes it all system) further enforces an effective two party system.

foolswisdom 3y ago
Just a nit, strictly speaking, the electoral college is just a system where states must delegate the power to vote for president to a group of people (the expectation being that they should make an informed decision to further their interests based on facts on the ground in the capital). It's also a form of indirection: you don't vote for president, the best you can do is appoint people you can trust to make a good decision (similarly, there was originally a layer of indirection for senators, who were appointed by state legislatures, not by state vote). Of course, this is essentially abolished because people wanted more direct control over the government. Regarding district level representation being obviously a bad idea - not necessarily. Since senators represent the state (and wasn't even voted upon directly by the people), representatives are the way local (populist) interests get represented. This only breaks down once when people start having general party allegiance (both at the ballot and in mind share), which I'd argue is itself caused by the fact that we vote directly on appointments which are far beyond our locality (senators but mainly the president), which then spills over to our choices of representatives.
- jcfrei 3y ago
  Why should the house of representatives reflect interests of different districts? It's supposed to represent interests of the states. For matters that are only relevant to one district they should most likely be dealt with at the state level and not federally.
  - foolswisdom 3y ago
    No, the senate represents the interests of the states. The house represents people (which is why they are for voted by citizens - even when the senate was appointed by state legislatures, and why different states have different numbers of representatives). I'm not sure really what the question is. In practice, they are voted for by district, so they represent the people of the district...

by jcfrei 3y ago

foolswisdom 3y ago

Just a nit, strictly speaking, the electoral college is just a system where states must delegate the power to vote for president to a group of people (the expectation being that they should make an informed decision to further their interests based on facts on the ground in the capital). It's also a form of indirection: you don't vote for president, the best you can do is appoint people you can trust to make a good decision (similarly, there was originally a layer of indirection for senators, who were appointed by state legislatures, not by state vote). Of course, this is essentially abolished because people wanted more direct control over the government. Regarding district level representation being obviously a bad idea - not necessarily. Since senators represent the state (and wasn't even voted upon directly by the people), representatives are the way local (populist) interests get represented. This only breaks down once when people start having general party allegiance (both at the ballot and in mind share), which I'd argue is itself caused by the fact that we vote directly on appointments which are far beyond our locality (senators but mainly the president), which then spills over to our choices of representatives.

jcfrei 3y ago
Why should the house of representatives reflect interests of different districts? It's supposed to represent interests of the states. For matters that are only relevant to one district they should most likely be dealt with at the state level and not federally.
- foolswisdom 3y ago
  No, the senate represents the interests of the states. The house represents people (which is why they are for voted by citizens - even when the senate was appointed by state legislatures, and why different states have different numbers of representatives). I'm not sure really what the question is. In practice, they are voted for by district, so they represent the people of the district...