written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed)
(find your bioregion/watershed)
|
|
|
|
|
written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed) |
||
[Intersperced below is Rep. Miller's reponse to me asking him to introduce legislation for proportional representation of the Wisconsin vote for president determining the electors to the Electoral Congress. When he touches on his own point about proportional representation making "third parties legitimate," he quickly rejects the idea. Read it for yourself if you once thought parties were representative entities innately. My reply is below as well:]
Dear Representative Miller,
Thanks for your obviously thoughtful response. I of course make one more additional suggestion, in an equally thoughtful way. I have some commentary, below.
At 09:45 AM 11/15/00 -0600, you [Rep. Miller] wrote:
>Mr. Whitaker,
>Thank you for your inquiry about the electoral college system for selecting
>the president. As you know, each state determines how presidential
>electors are selected. Wisconsin could adopt distribution according to
>winner-take-all by congressional district similar to the system in Maine and
>Nebraska. We could also adopt proportional distribution representation as
>you suggest.
>
>The primary liability of the electoral college system is the possibility
>that a candidate can win the electoral college without winning the national
>majority, seriously undermining the legitimacy of such a president.
Actually, this has happened on 15 occasions. On at least 15 occasions since the popular vote began to be counted (around 1828), neither of the major party candidates got a majority. Clinton did not get it in either 1992 or 1996, and neither did Lincoln, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, or Nixon (in 1968). However, the liability resides on the informal parties, instead of the electoral college.
The
>advantage of the electoral college system is that in most cases it provides
>a clear winner in close races. The 2000 presidential race is an exception,
actually, as I note above, historically, this is erroneous. The 2000 election is almost typical.
>but only because the national outcome will be determined by the results in
>one state where the difference is smaller than the accuracy of the vote
>counting mechanism. Imagine the chaos of a national recount, which could
>result if the electoral college were abolished and the national vote
>difference was as small as it is in this election.
>
>Proportional distribution of electoral votes would dramatically change the
>way presidential campaigns are conducted. States that adopt proportional
>distribution would probably be ignored in presidential races in favor of
>winner-take-all states.
Interesting point. However, would you introduce legislation that would allow for this contingency--meaning a proportional representational electoral congress with a majority/plurality clause that allows for majoritarian allotment, where the whole state was indeed winnable by one party for the electoral seats, when over 50% of the votes? This addresses your concern. This change would allow the popular vote in particular states to be a 'demographic run-off' context in such a situation that could avoid the political fiasco in Florida, though only in such a situation. In this situation of course, the electoral college would be going overall to the popular vote winner, Gore, already, and this electoral college issue of Florida's seats would have been decided within a couple days if Florida had had proportional representation with majoritarian allowance. Would you introduce legislation that would introduce proportional representation with a majoritarian allotment?
On the other hand, it would also eliminate the
>tortured recount process as is currently taking place in Florida. Under
>proportional representation, Bush and Gore would be arguing over one
>electoral vote in Florida, not 25. It is unlikely one electoral vote would
>make a difference in a national election. Proportional representation might
>allow third parties a chance to become credible.
>
>This current presidential election result has forced me to rethink my
>position on the electoral college, and I have come to the conclusion that it
>stabilizes our democracy. I feel that at this time I cannot introduce
>legislation to adopt a proportional distribution of Wisconsin's electoral
>votes.
>
>Mark Miller
>48th Assembly District
>Capitol, Room 3 North
>P.O. Box 8953
>Madison, WI 53708
>(608)266-5342, FAX (608)282-3648
>Rep.Miller@legis.state.wi.us <mailto:Rep.Miller@legis.state.wi.us>
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
