written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed)
(find your bioregion/watershed)
|
|
|
|
|
written from Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed) |
||
[Representative Miller's second response:]
At 09:44 AM 11/20/00 -0600, you [Mark Whitaker] wrote:
>Mr. Whitaker:
>I concur that another important element of an election is that it be
>competitive. The high stakes associated with a majoritarian assignment of
>all electoral votes occurs when the vote is close. For example, if the
>returns are:
>Candidate A: 49.95% of votes counted
>Candidate B: 29.90% of votes counted
>Candidate C: 19.00% of votes counted
>All other candidates: 1.00% of votes counted
>Write-ins, including Mickey Mouse, "none of the above", etc : .15%
>Invalid Ballots 2.00% of ballots cast
>Candidate A has a majority among candidates on the ballot, but not among all
>ballots cast. "Invalid" ballots provide the margin of difference in
>determining whether Candidate A obtains 11 electoral votes (majoritarian
>assignment) or 6 (proportional assignment). Every single "invalid" ballot
>will need to be scrutinized to determine whether or not it is a valid ballot
>for the purpose of determining if Candidate A obtained a majority. There
>is much more likely to be a close election involving majority/plurality
>status than a simple determination of who obtained the most votes.
>For me, the argument for proportional representation, an argument I support
>in principle, is clouded in the context of presidential politics and the
>constitutional provision for electors selected by each state. This
>ambivalence precludes me from sponsoring legislation to accomplish this
>goal.
>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>
It seems if you admit the admirability of competitive elections, certainly proportional representation with a majoritarian allotment would allow for both--majoritarianism as well as as competition? I am unable to follow your argument that simultaneously wants competition in elections without actually having competition in elections.
Your hypothetical argument above fails to mention the abysmally low voter turnout ratios in the United States--the media were 'applauding' 50%. It is typically less than that. The United States ranks last in voter turnouts in any industrialized democracy, though first in explaining to the world that it should be considered a model democracy simultaneously.
The type of majoritarianism that the United States has is a 'minimum majoritarianism' instead of a 'maximum majoritarianism'.
What I mean by 'minimum majoritarianism' is that that majoritarian voting laws, when they exist by themselves--only set up a context where it is important to systemically appeal to 50% of the voting populace--as a strategic maximum. "Maximum majoritarianism" would be a context where it is important to systemically appeal to 100% of the voting populace--as a strategic minimum. A minimum majoritarianism occcurs when there are a lack of party competition, a lack of fusion laws, etc. Instead of the electorate that is appealed to, in minimum majoritarianism contexts, the maximum to appeal to is only seen as 50%, as you have demonstrated above.
I am unsure if you are aware of this though actually, the context of voting laws we have presently was designed "by the Republicans for the Republicans" and against the Democratic party. It has led to a stunted Democratic Party, because the anti-fusion laws as well as various ballot changes in the early 1900s and late 1890s contributed to a context of voting that set up 'divide and rule' aspects that were only favorable to the minimized Republican Party core. It left a stunted Democratic party as well.
I hate to see a Democratic Representative--who has obviously thought a great deal about this--rationalize a context that is intentionally geared to be unDemocratic--that was expressedly designed AGAINST the Democratic Party.
One suggested reading a page might be able to send you (or email you a PDF for) is is Peter Argersinger's discussion of how the context we have 'inherited' was designed by the Republican Party, which led to political strategies that marginalize the Democratic Party. You may find this interesting.
"A Place on the Ballot": Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws
Peter H. Argersinger
The American Historical Review, Vol. 85, No. 2. (Apr., 1980), pp. 287-306.
It's available through www.jstor.org, with university subscription access.
>For me, the argument for proportional representation, an argument I support
>in principle, is clouded in the context of presidential politics and the
>constitutional provision for electors selected by each state. This
>ambivalence precludes me from sponsoring legislation to accomplish this
>goal.
>
Well, that was why I contacted you. I was asking you to introduce proportional representation with the majoritarian allotment clause, on the state level. To say that the principle is clouded because the constitutional provision for electors is selected by the state missed that this is a state level request, making it less cloudy--which only leaves your phrase "the context of presidential politics" as your caveat, since you said that in principle you support proportional representation. "The context of presidential politics" is a result of the state's electoral votes frameworks anyway. This can be, as you said, done on the state level, even to your principled support of proportional representation.
Regards,
Mark Whitaker
>
>
>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>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Douglas Whitaker [mailto:mrkdwhit@wallet.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:50 PM
> To: Miller, Mark
> Cc: Chuck.Chvala@legis.state.wi.us
> Subject: RE: FW: proportional representation in the
>electoral college, *with a majority allotment clause*: popular, geographic,
>AND plurality winnable - position?
>
> At 12:47 PM 11/17/00 -0600, you [Rep. Miller] wrote:
> >Mr. Whitaker,
> >You caught me on my characterization of the plurality
>winner as the "winner
> >of the national majority." Among the essentials of any
>electoral process
> >is that it is simple and that it is fair.
>
[me:]
> Among the essentials of any electoral process is
>that it is competitive. [--instead of simple. He recommends an uncompetitive framework.]
> Is that [competition] unimportant? Any electoral process has formal and
>informal elements. [he ignored this question.]
>
[Rep. Miller:]
> Your suggestion for a
> >majoritarian "winner take all" is interesting. It seems to
>fail the
> >simplicity test because in close elections it creates high
>stakes to
> >determine whether a majority exists.
[me:]
> I'm unsure to what you are referring to with 'it
>creates high stakes.'
> Could you explain? [He ignored this question, above.]
>
[Rep. Miller:]
> While I support creating proportional
> >representation options for state and local elections. I am
>not sure that
> >creating proportional representation for the electoral
>college is a good
> >idea. I may support such an effort, but I will not take the
>lead by
> >introducing legislation and fighting for it.
> >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
