written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed)
(find your bioregion/watershed)
|
|
|
|
|
written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed) |
||
At 12:27 PM 12/14/00 -0600, you wrote:
>This is great stuff! What do people think we should campaign for: the
>ranking method of first choice, second, etc. and/or the dividing of
>electoral college votes based on the overall percentages of popular vote? I
>am for both, particulary though the former.
>Jenna Schieffer
>
In terms of a long term strategy, I feel you should do both, one after the other, IRV first, the proportional representation with majoritarian allotment later. Why?
I feel that IRV can be a nice "Trojan Horse", to open the gates without a widespread threatening formal change. It is one that even Democrats and Republicans want in select states, by the way (see below). Concentrate on these states, particularly Alaska where Greens got much more than 5% for the presidential election.
However (in a more lengthy description on the site, in bioregional letter #11 and #12), I point out why IRV, though it does open the door, scoots third parties on through without doing very much for them, because second choices would typically go entirely toward the unrepresentative Democratic and Republican parties, which is even worse context in which to 'challenge' them when they are going to coup green votes anyway without any effort.
What is required, in the long-run, is a way to make all parties compete for 100% of the vote, instead of slide by with only 50% (or less in a plurality election, like Bush), because they are the largest minority party win. IRV actually, in a plurality party context in the United States, would leave third parties exactly where they are presently. They get their faces in the media, though the votes keep going to the Democrats and the Republicans in droves. Why?
Because the informal context it sets up is of a 'cheap fusion law' that makes sure that these parties keep getting third party votes by default, without them having to be more widely representative Democratic and Republican parties. They continue to coup the votes when third parties participate, and the Democrats and the Republican wins would be more secure.
This is all because the IRV gets connected with a context of majoritarian voting law: which considers getting 50% the 'optiumum' to reach for, all any party has to do is appeal to 50% or appeal to even less than 50% if there are more than two parties in the running. In short, IRV allows Democrats and Republicans to successfully win elections by even appealing to less than 50% of the populace, because they have a shoe-in with IRV basically giving them a second round win regardless. It makes them even more unrepresentative. This is far from an optimal arrangement, and it is even worse than the present context for green/third parties, even though it will get them media access and voters will at least vote them more often. However, pragmatically, the Democrats and the Republicans will keep winning elections by default, instead of winning elections because they appeal to the majority.
That is why I recommend IRV for the presidential vote (or for anywhere) *only as a Trojan Horse* to get the media-numbed United States aware of other options, a sort of a 'starter yeast' for later changes that are more meaningful. What are these later changes? I feel that the only context that would lead to competitive parties, competiting for 100% of the vote instead of 50% of the vote, would be proportional representation with a majoritarian allotment in the electoral college. If the point of the Electoral College is to have geographic information about the vote in particular states transferred into something meaningful, then it basically means that proportional representation is the best way to gauge a voter demographic in a particular state for the electors. And the majoritarian allotment potential is the bait to make all parties competitive for 100% of the voters--they could coup all the Electoral College votes if they get more than 50% of the voters in a state--as well as the proportional representation as an incentive for all parties to voice their demands in each election. If it goes plurality, they are assured of a reward. If any party gets 50% or more, they are assured of a reward of appealing to a wider electorate, instead of rewarded for appealing to a small electorate regardess (which is a drawback to the pure form of proportional representation--it demotes majoritarian parties and wide appeals, and pure proportional representation keeps less than 100% of the voters from being competed for by the parties.)
Second, another Trojan Horse that is being built by the Democrats and the Republican themselves: state based district allotment of electors--
Perhaps state district based allotment can be another Trojan Horse here, riding in on the Democratic and the Republican parties' desire in several states--in California, Illinois, and New Jersey so far--to move to their own gerrymandered district allotments (that are uncompetive, and thus shoe in Electoral College votes) instead of what almost all states have, the 'winner take all' slate allotment of electors, that makes parties compete.
The Democrats and the Republicans are fighting over the spoils here because they know they already own the district drawing process as part of the conflict of interest of being the only party choices in the United States so far, so they are actually 'changing' nothing by moving to district allotment of Electoral College votes. However, once they are split up a state, towards district allotment (keeping in mind they are the ones that set up their own districts), it will be that much easier for third parties to win one district in this context, than to win a whole state. That is why supporting "district allotment" (i.e., supporting Democratic and Republican uncompetitive districting plans for the state) is another Trojan Horse.
However, the goal should be towards proportional representation in the electoral college, however many feints it takes to get there--e.g., whether in support of IRV, or of (gerrymandered) "Congressional" districts (give me a break), which by the way, with the way they are drawn, returned around 60 **unchallenged** incumbents to Congress this year [2000]. It has been even less democratic in 1996. In 1996, the way the districts were drawn returned over 90 incumbents to Congress, without even a challenging candidate. There are only 435 Congressmen.
This is long term. Greens will likely have to become much more visible in state politics before this. That is why we have two Trojan Horses to help the Democrats and the Republicans build.
For an historical view, elections in the United States are getting more and more plurality win based. (see www.fairvote.org).
With IRV added to this context, all this means is that people effectively will institutionalize the Democrats and the Republicans as second choice wins, even if third parties contend. This does get third parties into the running and gets people voting them in their conscience more often.
Is this pragmatic? Yes, the Democrats and the Republicans in some states want this. Even Republicans want it in Alaska because there is a rightist-separatist party that splits the right vote in Alaska. In a majoritarian voting context, this splitting hands it to the Democrats as the 'largest minority' party, which is what majoritarian voting does in a plurality party context. That is why majoritarianism (set at 50% as max) is a losing context for any democratic procedure. The ideal is to make sure that the parties compete for the full 100% of the populace. This can be done only if there is the 'threat' to unrepresentative parties (that want to sit on a win by divide and conquer strategy that is rather successful in this present context). When any party has the ability to get some degree of electors, then this ratchets existing parties to bend to be more integrative and representative as their only strategy for taking the lead. This makes parties compete for 100% of the vote instead of compete for 50% of the vote, if all of the vote is important (in PR presidential elector contexts).
Other issues that effect third parties are the fusion laws (the lack of them). It was mostly a Republican legislative pressure to remove them in the 1890s, because Democratic/third fusion wins were always beating them in competitive states, particularly in the Midwest. Afterwards, the voting populace of the United States drops to around 50% where it has remained for over a century. This change was an informal dynamic effect of a formal structural change that benefits only the Republicans typically.
As for fusion laws, the Supreme Court has said it is 'up to the states,' when it was brought to them as an unconstitutional arrangement by Joel Rogers (UW-Madison professor in sociology and law). So--another route is to find the states where the Democrats are barely hanging on, and tempt them with the ability of couping more votes with fusion laws.
So, in summary, IRV and "Congressional" districts (read 'Democratic and Republican gerrymandered districts) as presidential allotment are both nice Trojan Horses. However, once in the gates/states and inside the media, proportional representation.
Ask your congress-people to support proportional representation in your state's electors. Keep it in their minds. If you want to see how it went with my representative (Mark Harris, D-WI), you can see the site as well. I posted the letters we exchanged, when I asked if he would introduce legislation for proportional representation of Wisconsin's electoral vote.
The letters I mentioned above are at
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~mrkdwhit/biostate/bioregionletterslist.htm
letters #11 and #12
I enclose something else about the states of CA, IL, and NJ. Tell greens or whoever to contact their congressmen there in support of this bill.
Regards,
Mark Whitaker
NOVEMBER 21, 15:27 EST
Lawmakers Mull Electoral Changes
By ROBERT TANNER
Associated Press Writer
Republican lawmakers in three states that went for Al Gore are proposing that they divide their state's electoral votes by congressional district, rather than the winner-take-all system.
In California, Illinois and New Jersey, state legislators proposed or planned bills to change their state laws so that the electoral vote can more closely match the popular vote.
``It's a fair proposal that I believe we need to consider in light of the unprecedented closeness [i.e, they're mad that Gore won in the present way] of this year's presidential election and growing questions about the winner-take-all Electoral College system,'' said New Jersey state Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr.
This year, George W. Bush could win the electoral vote and the presidency while losing the popular vote. The Electoral College assigns states a vote for each congressional district and each senator.
To reform or abolish the Electoral College, as some in Congress have proposed, would require a constitutional amendment. But states could choose on their own to change how they divide their electoral votes.
Only Maine and Nebraska split their votes by congressional district, with one electoral vote awarded for the winner of the popular vote in each district, and two votes awarded for the popular-vote winner across the state.
In Illinois, huge vote totals in Chicago helped Gore carry the state, though some congressional districts supported Bush, said Rep. Bill Mitchell.
``This bill acknowledges that there are differences in the political preferences in different parts of our state,'' Mitchell said. It would give rural areas more say in the election process, he said.
California state Assemblyman Tony Strickland said splitting the electoral votes by district would encourage presidential candidates to campaign more vigorously across the state.Miami Herald, AP wire
This is encouraging to me that we could see the Democrats and the Republicans feuding expand--and expand into structural changes that proportionalize the vote more. I pass this on to the list less in the interest of approving of this particular strategy around already gerrymandered districts, only in the interest of showing that these states are moving. Perhaps someone would want to mention IRV or PR to them, or their Congresspeople in that state?
I've talked to people in Oregon as well, that said 'things are moving.'
Any other states that are considering this, that anyone knows about?
Regards,
Mark Whitaker
link to a map of the present congressional districts of the United States
link to a map of the majoritarian districts of Wisconsin, compared to the bioregions of Wisconsin
link to www.fairvote.org, where you can see the irregular majoritarian districts.
Choose 'redistricting.' This site discusses the degree to which they are uncompetitive as well, with 60+ Congressional representatives and senators 'returning' to Congress without having been challenged when they 'ran' for election. There were over 90 of them in 1996. For a sense of scale, there are only 535 members of Congress total (435 House; 100 Senate). The size of the Congress is adjusted occassionally. The House of Representatives has been at 435 since 1910. Additionally, incumbency as a phenomenon is over 90% in the United States as well. There is very little 'running' for office in the United States. Why is this so? Some of this was explained above. See the other pages for more.
other pages on the bioregional state, keep reading them in order (recommended)
or
