I think that a simpler and more democratic system is feasible. The following, for instance, makes primaries unnecessary, would still allow as local as desired representation, would fairly express all voters intentions and would allow any voter a chance to run for office with or without party endorsement.
* A "candidate" is a unique name
* A "voter" is a unique name
* A "group" is a unique name (may or may not be a “party”)
* A "ballot" is a list of candidates in order of preference
Rules:
1. Any voter can add or withdraw themselves as a candidate.
2. Any group can endorse or un-endorse a candidate.
3. Each voter can create or change a single ballot at will.
Election: At a pre-specified "election day", results are frozen, collected, and a winner is determined by the standard rank choice algorithm.
It is, IMHO, better for confidence in democracy if a system is simple enough to be easily comprehended and is obviously fair. This would be mechanically difficult in the 18th century, but it is quite easy in modern times. I suspect that the Founders would especially like the non-special role that "parties" has here, and like the feature that any voter can just decide to run for any office. What could be more democratic?
It is interesting that you mention New Zealand as an example of proportional representation. While that is correct, there is a great deal of discontent with the form we have here in New Zealand. The discontent arises because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular and divisive minor party policies are supported by the major party in return for the minor party agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in the unpopular minor party policies being rammed through our parliament. Proportional representation may have worked in less divided times, but it’s not suited to the polarized societies we live in now.
I am sure that discontent with proportional representation is not localized to New Zealand. My conclusion is that democracies around the world are failing because:
Competing political parties + Cyclic elections =
Economic waste + Social turmoil + Inability to implement long-term plans
Ranked preference polling carried out in the UK hints at the potential for ranked preference systems to suppress far-right representation.
Modeling of ranked choice voting in our existing seats takes the projections down from nearly 50% of seats for Reform UK under First-Past-the-Post, to under 20% of seats under the Alternative Vote. A non-corrective regional list in an additional member system would bring that closer to proportionality to first preferences, but why would you want to match first preferences when over half of voters want to rank Reform UK last?
The solution to the political polarization we are seeing is more communication between both sides. It's that simple.
In 2007 or 2008, a few ladies did a study that proved that babies were racist as early as 1 year of age. I can't find the study right now but it's out there and there is a lot of supporting literature since.
The results they came to from the study was that if parents did not communicate effectively with their children, and explain why some people looked different (ie different skin colors, eye shapes, hair colors / textures, etc) that the children would make conclusions on their own, often making the wrong ones.
The explanation was that if a child didn't understand what they were looking at, they'd create an internal bias as a self protection mechanism and a bias against the unknown.
We are wired for communication. Any efforts to hinder communication creates a collateral problem that will eventually need to be dealt with.
What social media algorithms have done is divided people into two camps.
The political parties have not helped. Especially with the Left, who have been VERY effective at reducing communication with the other side. It was the Left that started courting compelled speech laws (and passing them in some countries), hindering the use of certain words or phrases, or using cancel culture to stop opposing arguments and discussions that may disagree with the Left's preferred narrative.
The Covid pandemic was a clear example of this.
Parenting is a great parallel. You can't force kids into liking someone or changing how they feel about something. You have to educate them about something and inspire them to do better. Forcing your kids into something they don't want to naturally do is the guaranteed way to make sure they hate it forever. It's parenting 101.
The Left's ideology, in an attempt to make things better by trying to control any speech they deem as 'hate speech' has caused a chilling of Free Speech, which in turn has created the catastrophic political conditions we have today. It's as clear as day.
PR is not a cure all. The two major western democracies with PR (Germany and NZ) both suffer from major populist revolts (with uncharacteristic extravagance, NZ could be said to have up to 4 of them, two of them in government, YMMV).
Only a government which solves problems is a cure to those who want to exploit them.
Thanks for this very interesting article! I never knew about the changes that have been made over the last century to apportionment of representatives. One just assumes that the system that is in place was the one that was always used from the founding of the Republic forward.
But I am unsure of how the mechanics of this would work in the US.
How can a state like Wyoming, South Dakota or North Dakota have proportional representation when they only have one seat?
Massachusetts has 9 seats but how would the three that Republicans would be given through proportional redistribution be determined? The three districts they lost but in which they did the best?
I know that some states used an "at large" system before 1967 which created problems of its own... and ran counter to the intentions of the Voting Rights Act passed two years before.
I know that partisanship is problematic but I sometimes wonder if voting for parties directly (rather than candidates) and then apportioning the representatives according to the votes they actually got might not work. In such a case third parties (and the voters who support them!) would realistically have a shot at some representation. Non-Party Affiliated/Independent voters could chose whatever party they want.
Then specific representatives would be selected through party conventions or elections and distributed geographically and demographically as they think best to insure adequate representation for their constituencies.
Under such a system political parties would be revitalized. Party platforms would once again mean something more than a laundry list of platitudes. Instead of using candidates as puppets the parties would have to directly compete for the hearts and minds of voters.
In such a system when it comes to legislation coalitions would be built around issues and not around party strategy looking to the next election and incumbent self preservation.
This system would play down from federal to state and local elections that have elections which are partisan.
I think that a simpler and more democratic system is feasible. The following, for instance, makes primaries unnecessary, would still allow as local as desired representation, would fairly express all voters intentions and would allow any voter a chance to run for office with or without party endorsement.
* A "candidate" is a unique name
* A "voter" is a unique name
* A "group" is a unique name (may or may not be a “party”)
* A "ballot" is a list of candidates in order of preference
Rules:
1. Any voter can add or withdraw themselves as a candidate.
2. Any group can endorse or un-endorse a candidate.
3. Each voter can create or change a single ballot at will.
Election: At a pre-specified "election day", results are frozen, collected, and a winner is determined by the standard rank choice algorithm.
It is, IMHO, better for confidence in democracy if a system is simple enough to be easily comprehended and is obviously fair. This would be mechanically difficult in the 18th century, but it is quite easy in modern times. I suspect that the Founders would especially like the non-special role that "parties" has here, and like the feature that any voter can just decide to run for any office. What could be more democratic?
It is interesting that you mention New Zealand as an example of proportional representation. While that is correct, there is a great deal of discontent with the form we have here in New Zealand. The discontent arises because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular and divisive minor party policies are supported by the major party in return for the minor party agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in the unpopular minor party policies being rammed through our parliament. Proportional representation may have worked in less divided times, but it’s not suited to the polarized societies we live in now.
If you would like to see how high feelings are running in New Zealand 3 months away from our next election, visit this political comment website: https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/peter-williams-my-vote-needs-a-home
I am sure that discontent with proportional representation is not localized to New Zealand. My conclusion is that democracies around the world are failing because:
Competing political parties + Cyclic elections =
Economic waste + Social turmoil + Inability to implement long-term plans
I think democracies need to get rid of both polarizing political parties and election cycles. My suggestions for achieving these changes may be found here: https://medium.com/@cliffwainui1/our-democracies-are-breeding-grounds-for-inequity-and-discontent-this-is-because-5bfa5810a96e
Please see my reply on this subject.
Just curious, has NZ had the same kind of populist wave seen elsewhere?
Yes, and that's why I think proportional representation is unlikely to work well in any democracy.
Ranked preference polling carried out in the UK hints at the potential for ranked preference systems to suppress far-right representation.
Modeling of ranked choice voting in our existing seats takes the projections down from nearly 50% of seats for Reform UK under First-Past-the-Post, to under 20% of seats under the Alternative Vote. A non-corrective regional list in an additional member system would bring that closer to proportionality to first preferences, but why would you want to match first preferences when over half of voters want to rank Reform UK last?
https://ewanhoyle.substack.com/p/the-good-systems-disagreement?r=2u1072&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The solution to the political polarization we are seeing is more communication between both sides. It's that simple.
In 2007 or 2008, a few ladies did a study that proved that babies were racist as early as 1 year of age. I can't find the study right now but it's out there and there is a lot of supporting literature since.
The results they came to from the study was that if parents did not communicate effectively with their children, and explain why some people looked different (ie different skin colors, eye shapes, hair colors / textures, etc) that the children would make conclusions on their own, often making the wrong ones.
The explanation was that if a child didn't understand what they were looking at, they'd create an internal bias as a self protection mechanism and a bias against the unknown.
We are wired for communication. Any efforts to hinder communication creates a collateral problem that will eventually need to be dealt with.
What social media algorithms have done is divided people into two camps.
The political parties have not helped. Especially with the Left, who have been VERY effective at reducing communication with the other side. It was the Left that started courting compelled speech laws (and passing them in some countries), hindering the use of certain words or phrases, or using cancel culture to stop opposing arguments and discussions that may disagree with the Left's preferred narrative.
The Covid pandemic was a clear example of this.
Parenting is a great parallel. You can't force kids into liking someone or changing how they feel about something. You have to educate them about something and inspire them to do better. Forcing your kids into something they don't want to naturally do is the guaranteed way to make sure they hate it forever. It's parenting 101.
The Left's ideology, in an attempt to make things better by trying to control any speech they deem as 'hate speech' has caused a chilling of Free Speech, which in turn has created the catastrophic political conditions we have today. It's as clear as day.
PR is not a cure all. The two major western democracies with PR (Germany and NZ) both suffer from major populist revolts (with uncharacteristic extravagance, NZ could be said to have up to 4 of them, two of them in government, YMMV).
Only a government which solves problems is a cure to those who want to exploit them.
Thanks for this very interesting article! I never knew about the changes that have been made over the last century to apportionment of representatives. One just assumes that the system that is in place was the one that was always used from the founding of the Republic forward.
But I am unsure of how the mechanics of this would work in the US.
How can a state like Wyoming, South Dakota or North Dakota have proportional representation when they only have one seat?
Massachusetts has 9 seats but how would the three that Republicans would be given through proportional redistribution be determined? The three districts they lost but in which they did the best?
I know that some states used an "at large" system before 1967 which created problems of its own... and ran counter to the intentions of the Voting Rights Act passed two years before.
I know that partisanship is problematic but I sometimes wonder if voting for parties directly (rather than candidates) and then apportioning the representatives according to the votes they actually got might not work. In such a case third parties (and the voters who support them!) would realistically have a shot at some representation. Non-Party Affiliated/Independent voters could chose whatever party they want.
Then specific representatives would be selected through party conventions or elections and distributed geographically and demographically as they think best to insure adequate representation for their constituencies.
Under such a system political parties would be revitalized. Party platforms would once again mean something more than a laundry list of platitudes. Instead of using candidates as puppets the parties would have to directly compete for the hearts and minds of voters.
In such a system when it comes to legislation coalitions would be built around issues and not around party strategy looking to the next election and incumbent self preservation.
This system would play down from federal to state and local elections that have elections which are partisan.
Great article Grant. Very clear and erudite in its analysis. Thanks for doing the work.