Proportional representation isn't reform that would work for Senate and presidential elections, both of which need reforming as much as House of Representatives elections.
It’s good to see executive elections being discussed separately from representative assembly contests (finally). The two have fundamentally different purposes.
Executive elections are aimed at finding one individual person who has the support of as wide an array of voters as possible, to maximize legitimacy.
To maximize the legitimacy of a representative assembly, the body collectively must mirror the views of the public as a whole.
IRV is a modest improvement over use of the plurality rule for executive elections, and you champion your Condorcet refinement as a more substantial advance toward centrality in polarized electorates - potentially very useful for that application.
Are US Senator contests more like executive or assembly elections? They compare closely to gubernatorial races - one at a time, covering the whole state. Nationally, only 33 or 34 are elected at a time (and originally only 8 or 9 and indirectly). It’s small and wasn’t and still isn’t intended to and definitely doesn’t reflect popular views well. So senatorial elections should use the same method as executive contests.
Congressional and state lower house elections need to use a form of PR, whether 3 to 9 seat districts as in the NYT article or a combination of plurality single-seat local districts balanced by a compensatory tier of one third to one half the house, depending on house size.
If you and the NYT authors each will admit that viewpoint diversity and party proliferation in the legislature , not (unrepresentative) ideological centrality of elected Ds and Rs there, combined with centrality, such as through a Condorcet compliant method, in the presidency, governors and US and state senates is is the way to get to both moderation of enacted legislation and voter representation in polarized times, we’d be making more progress on reforming both executive and assembly elections at both the state (“demonstration”) and federal levels.
PS. Congressional elections in states that have only one US Rep, like Alaska, are essentially executive elections, so a ranked ballot Condorcet rule can make good sense in those cases.
Gary I think you definitely bring up a good point. I personally think there is no issue with the House. The real fundamental problem is utilizing the EC final vote tier process, and sorting more fully and correctly. There's only two states that are actually still utilizing the EC vote tier. It's a final sorting of the popular votes that can be corrected by mechanisms of sorting with more differentiation of the votes. The only way to do it easily, within the present design is for each state to actually legislate their political sorts correctly. Allowing the default to one winner takes all is allowing total corruption to just a political opportunist system to target only specific districts that can turn a total state vote. That ain't voting. It also does NOT reflect the true will of the people in each state. Quick fixes are NOT any solution. It's a patch job on a con game.
I think the best focus should be on utilizing the Electoral College based on its corrected design for proportional distribution of electoral votes. The present default system culminates as only a confirmation of total state popular vote. The EC at the individual state level needs to be based on the congressional districts so differences of majorities can be revealed within each state. The present majority takes all in each state is NOT the way the EC was improved to function. The present default of majority takes all only corrupts the changes to improve the distribution of votes at a final sorting within each state. We should NOT get rid of the EC secondary voting tier, if we really want a functional active participatory democracy. The nation is too large for a direct vote determination, which would wind up bing totally unrepresentative of the true demographics within each state and then the total majority of actual citizens that are permitted to vote to determine the president.
The superficial FIX as proposed as PR is only a FIX to essentially make any popular vote only a mirage and illusion of any true democracy. The nation would become another nation like Syria.
It’s good to see executive elections being discussed separately from representative assembly contests (finally). The two have fundamentally different purposes.
Executive elections are aimed at finding one individual person who has the support of as wide an array of voters as possible, to maximize legitimacy.
To maximize the legitimacy of a representative assembly, the body collectively must mirror the views of the public as a whole.
IRV is a modest improvement over use of the plurality rule for executive elections, and you champion your Condorcet refinement as a more substantial advance toward centrality in polarized electorates - potentially very useful for that application.
Are US Senator contests more like executive or assembly elections? They compare closely to gubernatorial races - one at a time, covering the whole state. Nationally, only 33 or 34 are elected at a time (and originally only 8 or 9 and indirectly). It’s small and wasn’t and still isn’t intended to and definitely doesn’t reflect popular views well. So senatorial elections should use the same method as executive contests.
Congressional and state lower house elections need to use a form of PR, whether 3 to 9 seat districts as in the NYT article or a combination of plurality single-seat local districts balanced by a compensatory tier of one third to one half the house, depending on house size.
If you and the NYT authors each will admit that viewpoint diversity and party proliferation in the legislature , not (unrepresentative) ideological centrality of elected Ds and Rs there, combined with centrality, such as through a Condorcet compliant method, in the presidency, governors and US and state senates is is the way to get to both moderation of enacted legislation and voter representation in polarized times, we’d be making more progress on reforming both executive and assembly elections at both the state (“demonstration”) and federal levels.
PS. Congressional elections in states that have only one US Rep, like Alaska, are essentially executive elections, so a ranked ballot Condorcet rule can make good sense in those cases.
Gary I think you definitely bring up a good point. I personally think there is no issue with the House. The real fundamental problem is utilizing the EC final vote tier process, and sorting more fully and correctly. There's only two states that are actually still utilizing the EC vote tier. It's a final sorting of the popular votes that can be corrected by mechanisms of sorting with more differentiation of the votes. The only way to do it easily, within the present design is for each state to actually legislate their political sorts correctly. Allowing the default to one winner takes all is allowing total corruption to just a political opportunist system to target only specific districts that can turn a total state vote. That ain't voting. It also does NOT reflect the true will of the people in each state. Quick fixes are NOT any solution. It's a patch job on a con game.
I think the best focus should be on utilizing the Electoral College based on its corrected design for proportional distribution of electoral votes. The present default system culminates as only a confirmation of total state popular vote. The EC at the individual state level needs to be based on the congressional districts so differences of majorities can be revealed within each state. The present majority takes all in each state is NOT the way the EC was improved to function. The present default of majority takes all only corrupts the changes to improve the distribution of votes at a final sorting within each state. We should NOT get rid of the EC secondary voting tier, if we really want a functional active participatory democracy. The nation is too large for a direct vote determination, which would wind up bing totally unrepresentative of the true demographics within each state and then the total majority of actual citizens that are permitted to vote to determine the president.
The superficial FIX as proposed as PR is only a FIX to essentially make any popular vote only a mirage and illusion of any true democracy. The nation would become another nation like Syria.