<div>To first clarify what we are talking about, consider the quote below from the link immediately after:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>...of necessity, this arrangement dictates that all PR systems rely on multi-member districts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#B.%20Proportionaltxt">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#B.%20Proportionaltxt</a></div>
<div>---------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are numerous methods of implementing proportional representation, as this concept applies to different types of elections in differing electoral systems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One method possible here in the US is to allow US Representatives from states (states could individually vote to adopt PR or not) to be elected via simple proportional representation based on one person one vote. Given that many states only have one representative, there can't be proportional representation voting in those elections for house seats.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In states with numerous representatives, minority parties could gain house seats rather easily with PR. In states with very large numbers of representatives, the state could be split into several large voting districts to allow some degree of regional representation, while still allowing proportional representation voting.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>California with 53 house seats would generate an unmanageable ballot with statewide PR for those house seats. And maintaining regional state districts would partly answer the objection that PR does not address more local regional issues.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider that if this information below is true, states once had the option of using PR for US House seats. Does this mean currently PR voting for US House seats is illegal nation wide?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR23.1/richie.html">http://bostonreview.net/BR23.1/richie.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rep. Cynthia McKinney has introduced the Voters' Choice Act (HR 3068) to restore the option states had before 1967 to elect their Congressional delegations by PR. The bill is acquiring a growing number of co-sponsors, and other pro-PR legislation likely will be introduced in Congress in 1998. Several state groups have formed to promote PR, and recent PR initiatives in two major cities--Cincinnati and San Francisco--won 45 and 44 percent of the vote, respectively, despite limited funding and media exposure.
</div>
<div>--------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another option that can apply to some political races is to give voters a number of votes they can assign to various candidates:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.fairvote.org/reports/1993/hertzberg.html">http://www.fairvote.org/reports/1993/hertzberg.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ms. Guinier proposes as an alternative a variation on proportional representation which she calls "proportionate interest representation." It's really a modified at-large system. In a citywide election for five council seats, say, each voter would have five votes, which she could distribute among the five candidates any way she likes. If a fifth of the voters opted to "cumulate," or plump, all their votes for one candidate, they would be able to elect one of the five.
</div>
<div>--------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the options for how PR can be used to encourage more fair representation and voter participation are very complex, and no system is perfect. Perhaps analyzing how other nations that now employ PR function is a good starting point, while comparing PR with other types of electoral systems. Of course mixed electoral systems can be employed, like the system in Germany described at the link below, the same link that I gave at the top.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I suspect it would be very difficult if not impossible to implement proportional representation for US House seat elections in states where it could usefully apply. Politicians and their backers have spent considerable effort to redistrict their winner take all house seat elections to their party's favor, and taking away this powerful tool of political control would be met with fierce opposition. Allowing more minority party representation in the US House could have limiting effects on Republican or Democratic party domination in close votes.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The research information and discussion at this link offers far more substance regarding PR and various electoral systems than I can assimilate with good comprehension on a lazy rainy Sunday:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#A.%20New%20Zealandtxt">http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp334-e.htm#A.%20New%20Zealandtxt</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Voters are said to be more willing to cast votes for smaller parties when they know that their votes will produce tangible results, and when seats are allocated on the basis of the share of the popular vote. The ability, in general, for PR systems to deliver seats to smaller parties encourages the formation of such parties, a factor which promises representation of a wider spectrum of public opinion.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">------------</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</font></div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/15/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Hansen</b> <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">One option in a three-way race would be to adopt a method used by (you're<br>not go to believe this) Louisiana. There would be a run-off race between
<br>the top two candidates.<br><br>As in your example:<br><br>Green Party Candidate - 25%<br>Democrat Candidate - 35%<br>Republican Candidate - 40%<br><br>The subsequent run-off election would be between the Democrat candidate and
<br>the Republican candidate. Since the election concerns a one-person office,<br>I fail to see how this could be accomplished any other way. Any candidate<br>worth his/her salt would support/enact policies which would appease the most
<br>people.<br><br>It is a simple matter of "Rule by Majority". I realize that, with your<br>example, a true majority vote may not be realized. However, considering all<br>aspects, it is the fairest approach.<br>
<br>Tom Hansen<br>Vandalville, Idaho<br><br>"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently and for<br>the same reason."<br><br>- Robin Williams<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br><br>From: Andreas Schou [mailto:
<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>]<br>Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:07 AM<br>To: Tom Hansen<br>Cc: Vision2020<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] polarizing and the two-party system<br><br>> Ultimately, your concept would eliminate true representation. These
<br>> representatives would speak for their parties and not the people that<br>> elected (or as suggested by you "did not elect") them.<br><br>I'm not against the two-party system. I'm just suggesting that our
<br>system is structured so that it will not provide greater diversity in<br>politics, and will occasionally produce truly perverse outcomes.<br>Proportional representation solves this problem, but adds the problem<br>of not ensuring regional representation.
<br><br>Take, for instance, a district where 25% of the voters vote for the<br>Green Party candidate, 35% for the Democrat, and 40% for the<br>Republican. Who wins the election? The Republican. Which policies<br>would the majority of the voters in this district like to see enacted?
<br>My guess is, policies closer to those of the Democrat or the Green<br>Party candidate. Which policies are actually enacted? Those of the<br>Republican.<br><br>There are major electoral advantages, under the winner-take-all
<br>system, of consolidating the vote into as few voting blocs as<br>possible. Expecting that the parties won't take advantage of this is<br>ridiculous.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br><br><br>=======================================================
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>