Friday, July 09, 2010
My Blind Spot
I have discovered that I have a blind spot. I don't mean the defective vision in my left eye. I mean that I have been unaware of the influence that a disdain, if not actual dislike, of political parties has on the political thinking of average Americans who, unlike me, are not dedicated to one of the political parties.
For most of my voting life I have voted for Democrats. Exceptions include Norman Thomas, Charlie Montgomery, and Huston Flournoy. In 1948 I was convinced that Truman was a sure loser and I voted for Norman Thomas, as did many of my friends. When Truman won, we were ecstatic. Charlie Montgomery was a family friend in Michigan who was running for Tyrone Township Drain Commissioner in 1944, the only time I voted in Michigan. He was a Republican but I voted for him. I don't know who was running against him. Perhaps he was the only candidate. Tyrone Township Drain Commissioner is not a very important position. Once in California I voted for Huston Fluornoy, a Republican. I think he was running for State Controller. Alan Cranston was also running for the position as the incumbent but he was plagued by a scandal involving the appointment of political friends as estate inheritance appraisers.
I was discussing the new scheme in California for drawing the boundaries of legislative districts this morning with some friends. We also discussed a proposition to be on the ballot in November to repeal the scheme and give the job back to the legislators. Now I agree that the process of letting legislators draw their own district lines reeks of conflicts of interest if not outright corruption. I expressed my satisfaction at a recent poll that indicates that the voters will probably reject the proposal to abolish the system before it is even tried. I then said that I would prefer a much more advanced change, one that takes advantage of many years experience in such countries as France, Germany, Israel, and Russia. I would like to see some sort of proportional representation adopted under which each political party, large or small, gains members in a legislature in proportional to the fraction of voters for that party in the election. I believe, for example, that Israel, being a very small country, does not elect the 120 members of the Knesset from individual districts as we do. Apparently every party nominates as many candidates as it pleases, but no more than 120. Voters vote by party. Each party then is represented in the Knesset according to its percentage of the vote in the election.
To apply this scheme to California, we should enlarge the Assembly to at least 200 members. Let there be 40 election districts, each one electing five members. These five would be apportioned according to the party vote in the district - or something that would produce a similar result. I advocate using instant run-off voting to choose the five most popular candidates to represent the district.
Years ago there was a commission set up to study the California constitution and to recommend changes. Afterward I asked one of the members of the commission, Erwin Chemerinsky, why the commission had not proposed proportional representation. He replied that it was too radical an idea for the people of California. Now, this was Erwin Chemerinsky, not some Republican or Democratic party hack. He has been reviled and defended as being a very "liberal" person in his political thinking. Even he thought that the American public was not ready to think about such things as proportional representation.
So, here's my blind spot. I can understand the attachment that Americans have to our system of single-member districts. That's what we've always had. What I can't understand is their reluctance even to think about a system that would provide better representation to minor parties, such as the Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Independent Party, the Socialist Party, and so on. It occurred to me this morning that my blind spot is that I can not imagine not preferring one of these political parties. However, the same polls that give me happy news about reforming the legislature, not rejecting the commission method of setting legislative boundaries, and rejecting the proposal to delay the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act also shows that a majority of Americans do not care for any political party. Since Americans disdain parties, it is understandable that they would have no interest in proportional representation.
For most of my voting life I have voted for Democrats. Exceptions include Norman Thomas, Charlie Montgomery, and Huston Flournoy. In 1948 I was convinced that Truman was a sure loser and I voted for Norman Thomas, as did many of my friends. When Truman won, we were ecstatic. Charlie Montgomery was a family friend in Michigan who was running for Tyrone Township Drain Commissioner in 1944, the only time I voted in Michigan. He was a Republican but I voted for him. I don't know who was running against him. Perhaps he was the only candidate. Tyrone Township Drain Commissioner is not a very important position. Once in California I voted for Huston Fluornoy, a Republican. I think he was running for State Controller. Alan Cranston was also running for the position as the incumbent but he was plagued by a scandal involving the appointment of political friends as estate inheritance appraisers.
I was discussing the new scheme in California for drawing the boundaries of legislative districts this morning with some friends. We also discussed a proposition to be on the ballot in November to repeal the scheme and give the job back to the legislators. Now I agree that the process of letting legislators draw their own district lines reeks of conflicts of interest if not outright corruption. I expressed my satisfaction at a recent poll that indicates that the voters will probably reject the proposal to abolish the system before it is even tried. I then said that I would prefer a much more advanced change, one that takes advantage of many years experience in such countries as France, Germany, Israel, and Russia. I would like to see some sort of proportional representation adopted under which each political party, large or small, gains members in a legislature in proportional to the fraction of voters for that party in the election. I believe, for example, that Israel, being a very small country, does not elect the 120 members of the Knesset from individual districts as we do. Apparently every party nominates as many candidates as it pleases, but no more than 120. Voters vote by party. Each party then is represented in the Knesset according to its percentage of the vote in the election.
To apply this scheme to California, we should enlarge the Assembly to at least 200 members. Let there be 40 election districts, each one electing five members. These five would be apportioned according to the party vote in the district - or something that would produce a similar result. I advocate using instant run-off voting to choose the five most popular candidates to represent the district.
Years ago there was a commission set up to study the California constitution and to recommend changes. Afterward I asked one of the members of the commission, Erwin Chemerinsky, why the commission had not proposed proportional representation. He replied that it was too radical an idea for the people of California. Now, this was Erwin Chemerinsky, not some Republican or Democratic party hack. He has been reviled and defended as being a very "liberal" person in his political thinking. Even he thought that the American public was not ready to think about such things as proportional representation.
So, here's my blind spot. I can understand the attachment that Americans have to our system of single-member districts. That's what we've always had. What I can't understand is their reluctance even to think about a system that would provide better representation to minor parties, such as the Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Independent Party, the Socialist Party, and so on. It occurred to me this morning that my blind spot is that I can not imagine not preferring one of these political parties. However, the same polls that give me happy news about reforming the legislature, not rejecting the commission method of setting legislative boundaries, and rejecting the proposal to delay the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act also shows that a majority of Americans do not care for any political party. Since Americans disdain parties, it is understandable that they would have no interest in proportional representation.
Labels: proportional representation, redistricting commission, single-member districts
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Turned-off Independents
Roughly a third of the voters refuse to affiliate themselves with any political party. Polls indicate that they have a low opinion of the two major parties. In very rough numbers, Democrats have an approval rating of about 40 percent and Republicans about 20 percent. Of course these percentages change from time to time. It is likely that some time in the next year or two the Republicans will gain in approval. Probably the Democrats will lose. We will then have two political parties, each with an approval rating of the order of 30 percent. That is, thirty percent of the independent voters will think well of the parties - or at least of one of them. Seventy percent of the independent voters will disapprove of both parties.
In my opinion, the reason that independent voters have a low opinion of our political parties and of Congress is that they are frustrated by the fact that our government, particularly the national or federal government, is not structured to be truly representative. The Senate in particularly is skewed in favor of the small states and against the big states, especially states that contain the large cities: New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and others. It is skewed in favor of small states with low populations: Alaska, Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, etc.
In addition to the ancient recipe for the Senate, with two Senators from each state, regardless of population, the also ancient system of single-member districts for the House skew the representation in favor of the winners. The residents of these districts who didn't happen to vote for the winners are unrepresented. Republicans do not try to represent the minority Democrats in their districts and Democrats do not try to represent the minority Republicans. In addition, the two major parties are divided along fundamental ideological considerations. Republicans believe in "small government," no matter what the cost. Our constitution was drawn up and approved in 1787. Ideally, our government should do no more or no less for its citizens than it did in that year. Democrats believe in "government that provides needed and useful services." Social Security and Medicare are examples of such services. Democrats believe that government should do what is needed to provide every American with adequate health care, regardless of the cost. Democrats believe that the cost of not providing such care is greater than the cost of providing it. Republicans distrust government's ability to provide such a service efficiently and fairly.
The writers of the constitution distrusted and despised political parties. The man (or person) representing a legislative district should consider the wishes and well-being of the residents of his district, not the ideology of a particular political party. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out the way the founding fathers wished. Members of the federal legislature are very closely bound to their parties for support in campaigns to be reelected. Party support means campaign money and advantageous committee appointments. A representative of a rural district in Nebraska wants to be on the Agriculture Committee. A representative of a district in Nevada or Montana may want to be on a committee that deals with mines or national forests. A representative who doesn't toe the party line may find himself on committees that his constituents have no interest in. Political parties are here and they are going to stay. They have developed in every legislature or parliament in the world. Even local "non-partisan" legislatures like the Los Angeles City Council exhibit political parties. Although the members of the body are legally "non-partisan," everyone knows the party affiliations of all the members. We know that the present mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, is a Democrat. His predecessor James Hahn was also a Democrat. His predecessor was a Republican. And so on. Fortunately, party ideology doesn't play a major part in local politics and in forming local policy.
What can be done?
About the Senate, probably nothing without a new constitutional convention. Representation in the Senate can not be changed except by a unanimous vote of all fifty states.
About the House, some form of proportional representation would provide representation for the voters on the "losing" side. Such a change would entail multiple member districts. Party representation from such a district would reflect the proportion of votes each party's candidates received. This change would make it possible for minor parties, such as the Green Party, the American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party to elect a few members to the national legislature. At present these minor parties are completely excluded.
Is it likely that such changes will be made in our national government during my lifetime?
No.
In my opinion, the reason that independent voters have a low opinion of our political parties and of Congress is that they are frustrated by the fact that our government, particularly the national or federal government, is not structured to be truly representative. The Senate in particularly is skewed in favor of the small states and against the big states, especially states that contain the large cities: New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and others. It is skewed in favor of small states with low populations: Alaska, Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, etc.
In addition to the ancient recipe for the Senate, with two Senators from each state, regardless of population, the also ancient system of single-member districts for the House skew the representation in favor of the winners. The residents of these districts who didn't happen to vote for the winners are unrepresented. Republicans do not try to represent the minority Democrats in their districts and Democrats do not try to represent the minority Republicans. In addition, the two major parties are divided along fundamental ideological considerations. Republicans believe in "small government," no matter what the cost. Our constitution was drawn up and approved in 1787. Ideally, our government should do no more or no less for its citizens than it did in that year. Democrats believe in "government that provides needed and useful services." Social Security and Medicare are examples of such services. Democrats believe that government should do what is needed to provide every American with adequate health care, regardless of the cost. Democrats believe that the cost of not providing such care is greater than the cost of providing it. Republicans distrust government's ability to provide such a service efficiently and fairly.
The writers of the constitution distrusted and despised political parties. The man (or person) representing a legislative district should consider the wishes and well-being of the residents of his district, not the ideology of a particular political party. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out the way the founding fathers wished. Members of the federal legislature are very closely bound to their parties for support in campaigns to be reelected. Party support means campaign money and advantageous committee appointments. A representative of a rural district in Nebraska wants to be on the Agriculture Committee. A representative of a district in Nevada or Montana may want to be on a committee that deals with mines or national forests. A representative who doesn't toe the party line may find himself on committees that his constituents have no interest in. Political parties are here and they are going to stay. They have developed in every legislature or parliament in the world. Even local "non-partisan" legislatures like the Los Angeles City Council exhibit political parties. Although the members of the body are legally "non-partisan," everyone knows the party affiliations of all the members. We know that the present mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, is a Democrat. His predecessor James Hahn was also a Democrat. His predecessor was a Republican. And so on. Fortunately, party ideology doesn't play a major part in local politics and in forming local policy.
What can be done?
About the Senate, probably nothing without a new constitutional convention. Representation in the Senate can not be changed except by a unanimous vote of all fifty states.
About the House, some form of proportional representation would provide representation for the voters on the "losing" side. Such a change would entail multiple member districts. Party representation from such a district would reflect the proportion of votes each party's candidates received. This change would make it possible for minor parties, such as the Green Party, the American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party to elect a few members to the national legislature. At present these minor parties are completely excluded.
Is it likely that such changes will be made in our national government during my lifetime?
No.
Labels: minor parties, party ideology, proportional representation
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thoughts about "Open Primaries"
I've been reading some of the objections to the proposed "open" primary for seats in the California Legislature. The proposed primary would be just like the primary election for a local "non-partisan" office. Candidates would enter the primary and could state their party affiliations if they wished. Voters would choose among the candidates. The top two would then compete in the general election.
One objection is that it is possible under such a scheme for both top vote-getters to belong to the same party. They could even belong to the party not favored by the majority of voters in the district. Thus, a sixty-percent Democratic district could be represented by a Republican and a sixty-percent Republican district could be represented by a Democrat.
How could this happen? Suppose, in a 60 or 70 percent Democratic district, six or seven Democrats entered the race and only two Republicans. It is possible that the Democrats would split the vote among them to the extent that the top two would be the Republicans.
If this does happen, it would not be long before someone would be circulating an initiative petition to cure the problem. Now, there are several known cures. The law could be written so that the top Democrat and the top Republican would face off against each other in the fall election. The law could be written to eliminate the primary election altogether and simply let all candidates participate in the general election. In that case, the voters would be asked to choose their favorite, second favorite, third favorite, etc., among all the candidates. The winner would be chosen by a process known as "instant run-off" voting. (I've explained elsewhere how this works.)
Even though these procedures are well-known and have been tried successfully in other democracies, I doubt very much that any Californian would think of them. Some other cure would be proposed. Most likely, the change would be to return to the present primary law.
Many years ago there was a commission to study and propose changes to the California Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky was a member of the commission. One change that was not proposed was to have proportional representation, a plan used by most democratic countries outside of the US, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. I asked Erwin why the commission had not suggested such a change. He told me that it was too radical an idea.
One objection is that it is possible under such a scheme for both top vote-getters to belong to the same party. They could even belong to the party not favored by the majority of voters in the district. Thus, a sixty-percent Democratic district could be represented by a Republican and a sixty-percent Republican district could be represented by a Democrat.
How could this happen? Suppose, in a 60 or 70 percent Democratic district, six or seven Democrats entered the race and only two Republicans. It is possible that the Democrats would split the vote among them to the extent that the top two would be the Republicans.
If this does happen, it would not be long before someone would be circulating an initiative petition to cure the problem. Now, there are several known cures. The law could be written so that the top Democrat and the top Republican would face off against each other in the fall election. The law could be written to eliminate the primary election altogether and simply let all candidates participate in the general election. In that case, the voters would be asked to choose their favorite, second favorite, third favorite, etc., among all the candidates. The winner would be chosen by a process known as "instant run-off" voting. (I've explained elsewhere how this works.)
Even though these procedures are well-known and have been tried successfully in other democracies, I doubt very much that any Californian would think of them. Some other cure would be proposed. Most likely, the change would be to return to the present primary law.
Many years ago there was a commission to study and propose changes to the California Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky was a member of the commission. One change that was not proposed was to have proportional representation, a plan used by most democratic countries outside of the US, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. I asked Erwin why the commission had not suggested such a change. He told me that it was too radical an idea.
Labels: Erwin Chemerinsky, open primaries, proportional representation
