A 21st Century Federalist Paper: Split Vote Proportional Representation (Portion of 2nd Draft)
Note: This idea is limited to the house of representitives, and requires doubling the number of seats from 435 to 870. I posted the first part which discusses increasing the size of the house here
Instead of creating 435 new districts, the new seats would represent the minority within the district. However, these two representatives would not have two equal votes. Rather, each district would be entitled to one vote that the two representatives would split. Thus, if a candidate won 51% of the popular vote they would receive 51% of the district’s 1 vote in congress. This system would effectively end the possibility of gerrymandering. Moreover, uniting an electorate towards common goals will become the rule. As opposed to today’s unfortunatly effective political strategy of dividing the electorate against each other.
The other reform is ending the practice of one district being entitled to one full vote. Instead, the weight of every district's vote would be proportional to how many registered voters participated in the congressional election. Thus, if only 38 percent of a district's registered voters participated in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives would have to split 38/100 of the possible full vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, “My vote doesn’t matter.” This will also end the usefulness of the most effective but destructive of political strategies: Rallying the easily controllable groups of voters with divisive issues, while purposefully making the unpredictable voters apathetic.
There are numerous hurdles to passing such a sweeping reform. The most obvious of these difficulties would be the passing a constitutional amendment. However, as with all large-scale reforms its best to keep our attention on the next step, not the top of the mountain. Realistically, we could expect a decade and a half to pass before such a proposal could make its way through the system. Thus, I will limit the remainder of this letter to why this is proposal could and should gain legitimacy and attention.
As John Locke once observed, “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” Most Americans have become so accustomed to the plurality/majority system I'm expecting most people to judge this proposition as radical, or insane. However, systems of proportional representation are neither new nor uncommon. In fact, 21 out of the 28 nations in Western Europe use a form proportional representation to elect their national legislatures. In constrast we still use the 220 year old system of plurality/majority, or "winner takes all".
My proposition is a unique form of proportional representation that has been tailored for American Federalism. From hereon, I shall refer to my proposed form of proportional representation as (temporarily) “the split vote system”. Almost all variations of proportional representation are designed for parliamentary systems of government. Employing them within America’s unique system would be akin to hammering a screw into a block of wood. Nevertheless, the reasons for creating a unique and untested form of proportional representation warrant an explanation.
The split vote system is most similar to what electoral designers would call the “German system”, or “the mixed member proportional system”. This system was first practiced in West Germany following World War II. However, until just recently it remained relatively rare and unpopular. However, in the 1990’s New Zealand and Hungry abandoned their majority/plurality systems in favor of the German system. Most recently, the newly created parliaments in Scotland and Wales adopted the same system.
However, there are important differences between the German System and the split vote system. For example, suppose we held an election for a 100-seat legislature that represented 50 districts. If we used the German system, voters would cast two votes on their ballots: One vote would elect 50 seats using the majority-plurality system. The other vote would decide what proportion of seats should go to what party. Thus, if the Democrats won 28 out 50 of individual districts and 40% of voters preferred the democratic party, than the democrats would receive 12 additional seats creating a grand total of 40 of a total 100 seats.
The German system’s second vote for a political party is unnecessary and counter-productive within our system. The German system provides a necessary check and balance in the countries currently practicing it; parliamentary systems entrust the legislative branch with electing the nations chief executive. However, the American people already have a de-fact equivalent to the German system’s second vote. We have been given the unique power of electing our chief executive. Moreover, the purpose of the House of Representatives to protect and advance local communities interests on the national level. There is no reason to waste half of its limited seats with partisan filler. The splitting of a vote within a district preserves the interests of a community. Best of all, it naturally achieves same proportional power as the German system within the national level.
More later...
(this work is part of one of my ongoing projects of reforming American Federalism, as far as I know I've proposed something new. However, if you know of a form of proportional representation that resembles what I propose below, please let me know. As Phaedrus said, "I think you may have re-invented the wheel." Please save me the embarrassment of telling the world I've invented the wheel.)
Instead of creating 435 new districts, the new seats would represent the minority within the district. However, these two representatives would not have two equal votes. Rather, each district would be entitled to one vote that the two representatives would split. Thus, if a candidate won 51% of the popular vote they would receive 51% of the district’s 1 vote in congress. This system would effectively end the possibility of gerrymandering. Moreover, uniting an electorate towards common goals will become the rule. As opposed to today’s unfortunatly effective political strategy of dividing the electorate against each other.
The other reform is ending the practice of one district being entitled to one full vote. Instead, the weight of every district's vote would be proportional to how many registered voters participated in the congressional election. Thus, if only 38 percent of a district's registered voters participated in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives would have to split 38/100 of the possible full vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, “My vote doesn’t matter.” This will also end the usefulness of the most effective but destructive of political strategies: Rallying the easily controllable groups of voters with divisive issues, while purposefully making the unpredictable voters apathetic.
There are numerous hurdles to passing such a sweeping reform. The most obvious of these difficulties would be the passing a constitutional amendment. However, as with all large-scale reforms its best to keep our attention on the next step, not the top of the mountain. Realistically, we could expect a decade and a half to pass before such a proposal could make its way through the system. Thus, I will limit the remainder of this letter to why this is proposal could and should gain legitimacy and attention.
As John Locke once observed, “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” Most Americans have become so accustomed to the plurality/majority system I'm expecting most people to judge this proposition as radical, or insane. However, systems of proportional representation are neither new nor uncommon. In fact, 21 out of the 28 nations in Western Europe use a form proportional representation to elect their national legislatures. In constrast we still use the 220 year old system of plurality/majority, or "winner takes all".
My proposition is a unique form of proportional representation that has been tailored for American Federalism. From hereon, I shall refer to my proposed form of proportional representation as (temporarily) “the split vote system”. Almost all variations of proportional representation are designed for parliamentary systems of government. Employing them within America’s unique system would be akin to hammering a screw into a block of wood. Nevertheless, the reasons for creating a unique and untested form of proportional representation warrant an explanation.
The split vote system is most similar to what electoral designers would call the “German system”, or “the mixed member proportional system”. This system was first practiced in West Germany following World War II. However, until just recently it remained relatively rare and unpopular. However, in the 1990’s New Zealand and Hungry abandoned their majority/plurality systems in favor of the German system. Most recently, the newly created parliaments in Scotland and Wales adopted the same system.
However, there are important differences between the German System and the split vote system. For example, suppose we held an election for a 100-seat legislature that represented 50 districts. If we used the German system, voters would cast two votes on their ballots: One vote would elect 50 seats using the majority-plurality system. The other vote would decide what proportion of seats should go to what party. Thus, if the Democrats won 28 out 50 of individual districts and 40% of voters preferred the democratic party, than the democrats would receive 12 additional seats creating a grand total of 40 of a total 100 seats.
The German system’s second vote for a political party is unnecessary and counter-productive within our system. The German system provides a necessary check and balance in the countries currently practicing it; parliamentary systems entrust the legislative branch with electing the nations chief executive. However, the American people already have a de-fact equivalent to the German system’s second vote. We have been given the unique power of electing our chief executive. Moreover, the purpose of the House of Representatives to protect and advance local communities interests on the national level. There is no reason to waste half of its limited seats with partisan filler. The splitting of a vote within a district preserves the interests of a community. Best of all, it naturally achieves same proportional power as the German system within the national level.
More later...
(this work is part of one of my ongoing projects of reforming American Federalism, as far as I know I've proposed something new. However, if you know of a form of proportional representation that resembles what I propose below, please let me know. As Phaedrus said, "I think you may have re-invented the wheel." Please save me the embarrassment of telling the world I've invented the wheel.)
