On 2004-08-27T13:14:47-0700, Steve Schear wrote: > At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote: As I understand it (I wasn't there, but perhaps you were), their complaint was that their "representatives" weren't from the region they claimed to represent, and that they weren't chosen democratically. You and I have no such claim. I can't claim lack of representation just because my fellow citizens are idiots who subscribe to the Libertarian or Socialist or Zoroastrian platform yet vote for a Republican or Democrat.
Although some voters registered with minority parties do indeed cross lines and vote for the majority candidate they feel is the lesser of two evils, they are not the focus of my interest but rather what representation is afforded those that do vote with their registered parties. In almost all other democracies independent voter turnouts in the magnitude of U.S. elections would guarantee at least one seat in a state (equivalent) or national assembly. But in the U.S these voters are being denied effective representation (and here 'effective' cannot be defined to mean the choice of the majority when voting is by district which eliminates any practical chance that a minority party candidate can be seated).
> The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any > of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount.
What you or I want has nothing to do with it. I don't get to redefine election procedure whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win an election.
No, but voters should be able to withhold their tax money, where possible, until they do. I think these disenfranchised voters would feel much less damaged if they weren't financially supporting a such an undemocratic system.
I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither represents my views. No matter who wins, the winner is my president and my representative. I can't claim otherwise. The best I can do is blame all the idiot voters who cling to party-ID as if it were their only hope of survival.
You are attempting to substitute an inherently winner-take-all contest for the legislative contests I have been discussing. One has nothing to do with the other.
> Representation is about interests and ideology. If a
> significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests
> and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become
> radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these
> disenfranchised voters.
Well, one district in TX managed to elect someone who's decent - Ron Paul. It's possible. The fact that libertarians or fascists everywhere don't get their candidates elected has more to do with the fact that they vote Republican or Democrat "because a vote for a third party is a wasted vote." Blame the morons in the electorate for not electing representatives that mirror their views. That's where the blame lies.
Its only 'wasted' because there is no chance that a majority in their voting district will also vote for the same candidate.
What do you want? Do you want everyone to vote Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, then apportion the House of Representatives and the Senate appropriately? Who picks the representatives?
The manners for the selection of candidates under a proportional system are varied but well understood outside the U.S. Perhaps these links might educate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation and http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm
The reason we don't have any socialists or libertarians or fascists in Congress is that not a single district votes for one. The U.S. has this fixation on voting for one of the two major parties. Other countries do not; that's why some of them have multi-(3+)-party representation in their parliaments.
No, the reason the U.S. has a fixation on voting for one of two major parties is because of a lack of proportional representation like elsewhere. I am certain you have the cause and effect interchanged.
Incidentally, some northeastern state allows each congressional district to pick one elector, and the State as a whole picks two. (Electors = Senators + House Reps). If you're complaining about presidential elector selection, that blame lies with the States; the States dictate how their electors are chosen.
I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter.
> The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted > in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can > eliminate these geopolitical distortions.
State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors?
The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies.
steve
