"Proportional representation" describes a wide range of methods of
voting. It's a principle, not a system, and there is a variation of
proportional representation that can address nearly every objection to
other variations of it.
For example, Illinois from 1870 to 1980 used a candidate-based method
of proportional voting (really "semi-proportional") called cumulative
voting -- one that can be used in nonpartisan elections too. Districts
had three members. Party leaders didn't control who was nominated- --
voters did in primaries, where cumulative voting was also used. When a
party nominated two or three candidates, they represented different
parts of that party's spectrum. With three seats overall to be elected
and about 20-25% of the vote being what it took to win a seat, you
typically had left, center and right of that area represented -- two
members of one party, one of the other, and often at least one of
these winners an independent thinker. (Illinois had a group of
legislators called "The Independents" for that reason, even when
nominated with major parties.)
The end result in partisan terms was that most voters had at least one
representative they felt relatively akin to and both parties shared
constituents in almost every part of the state. That led toward
representatives of the same area doing more policy and constituent
service work together even when in different parties, and meant that
the parties in their caucus had more people to think about as
constituents.
Even better from my perspective would the single transferable vote
(the IRV-type method we call choice voting) as producing similar
dynamics while making it easier for more candidates to run hard
without splitting the vote and creating incentives for candidates to
reach outside their base and voters to think outside their base. There
also are a number of party based systems where voters still have a
chance to vote for candidates and either establish or change the order
in which candidates get elected from that party - and mixed systems
with half or more of representatives elected directly in districts.
I'd prefer bigger districts with more than three representatives, but
even going to three would provide a major change in how parties and
representatives operated -- and be nothing like what Doug writes about
below.
Rob
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Douglas Johnson
<djohnson@ndcresearch.com> wrote:
Rick's very interesting analysis is a good chance to point out to those
flirting with the idea of proportional representation that PR has forced
polarization: party leaders decide which party members get to sit in the
legislature, and anyone straying from the party line does not come back next
time.
I am very interested in the findings of increased polarization in Congress.
But I would think that anyone who views this as a negative thing (I have
mixed opinions) would be 100% against proportional representation.
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government
Claremont McKenna College
o 909-621-8159
m 310-200-2058
douglas.johnson@cmc.edu
www.RoseReport.org
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:04 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Pildes guest post/more news III
Pildes: Political Polarization and the Nationalization of Congressional
Elections
Here's a guest post from Rick Pildes:
As demonstrated again in the 2010 elections, the single most significant
fact about American politics over the last generation is the emergence of
hyperpolarized political parties. The parties are both internally more
unified than in prior decades and more sharply differentiated from each
other. This is not a transient fact. This polarization has began roughly in
the 1980s and has been increasing constantly ever since. Indeed, the 2010
election cycle saw an even further purification of the parties, as a number
of more centrist or moderate figures were eliminated during the primary
process. As I have written about, this hyperpolarization will have numerous
consequences for both elections and governance, one of which was played out
yesterday: congressional elections are likely to be more nationalized. They
will be much more referenda on the political parties and their leaders than
individualized judgments about particular House and Senate candidates.
Candidates will rise and fall with the fate of their political parties more
than in the past. And the fate of the parties will be heavily determined by
public judgments about the party's leaders, particularly, for the party in
power, the President. That is the best explanation, I believe, of why we
have now experienced three cycles in a row of "wave" elections, with
yesterday's being the most dramatic example.
Here's the data to support the view that "wave elections" are becoming more
common. From 1976-2004, there was only one year in which the shift (or
"swing," in the more technical jargon) in the aggregate, nationwide vote for
the parties from one election cycle to the next exceeded 5% (for data, I am
relying on this paper by Nagler and Issacharoff). That was in 1994, when the
Republicans took over the House. On average during this period, the swing
between the parties was 2.18% (if we include the dramatic 1994 election) and
1.89% (if we exclude 1994). But in 2006, the swing from 2004 was 7%, in
favor of the Democrats. That is because the 2006 elections were a national
referendum, in effect, on the Bush presidency at a moment at which that
presidency had become widely unpopular, as demonstrated in Gary Jacobson's
analysis of those elections. Initial analysis from Nate Silver of
yesterday's results indicate that there was a swing of 6.7% for the
Republicans from the prior election. The 2010 election, again, was a
nationalized referenda, this time on the first two years of the Obama
administration. Though individual factors influenced many races, the general
pattern was again one in which candidates rose and fell with their party
moreso than in earlier decades. From 1964-2004, there were only two
elections with a swing of 6% or more, 1966 and 1994. We have now had at
least two elections involving this kind of swing in the last four years.
Why are "wave elections" becoming so much more common? My hypothesis is that
it's because of the intense polarization of the parties that has emerged.
This polarization does not guarantee that we will see much more dramatic
swings for and against the parties; voters might have stable preferences
between the parties over long periods of time, even if the parties are
sharply polarized. But this polarization makes wave elections more likely.
When the party labels represent clearly identifiable brands that are sharply
distinct from each other, voters are more able, and more likely, to link the
fates of individual candidates to each other through the party label. Hence,
polarization, nationalization of elections, and waves of shift in support
between the parties all go hand in hand.
The rise of more nationalized elections, through polarization of the
parties, has implications for many aspects of elections and governance.
Briefly, here's one -- I get asked frequently why, if congressional
districts are so gerrymandered, has there been so much turnover in the House
in 2006, 2008, and now, 2010? Didn't the gerrymandering that followed the
2000 Census make congressional districts much safer and hence less
competitive? The answer is yes: congressional districts were safer, in that
it took a much larger swing of support from one party to the other to throw
out those elected in the districts designed for this decade. But, the
nationalization of elections has made these much larger waves possible and
more likely. Thus, congressional districts were more insulated, but the
tidal waves of swings for and against the parties have been high enough --
much higher than in the past -- to overcome this insulation, when voters
turn on one party or the other. That's a brief answer, and I'll elaborate in
another post if that's not clear enough. But for now, the larger point is
that the intense polarization of the parties leads to greater
nationalization of congressional elections. That greater nationalization
enables "wave elections" of the sort we are now experiencing.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:15 PM
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org rr@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a
gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC
number is 10132.) Thank you!
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law