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
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
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.
Great article Grant. Very clear and erudite in its analysis. Thanks for doing the work.