From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Reform of Congress, legislatures
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:28:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.cs.utexas.edu

In article <H1y5PB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak) writes:
>
>>     What we need is a proportionally elected house of Congress.
>
>We already have this.  (House of Representatives)
>
>...
>> just consider a system whereby one house is elected by the current
>> geographically-based winner-take-all system
>
>?? There _is_ no "current ... winner-take-all" system.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by 'There _is_ no "current ...
winner-take-all" system.' ??? Here's my understanding of how it
works.... each state is divided into multiple congressional districts.
The vote in each district is counted independently and the winner *in
each district* represents the entire district (Hence the term
"winner-take-all"). Therefore, if some political group, say the
libertarians, command an average of 10% of the electorate in each
district in the country, they could still end up with no
representatives at all, whereas under Paul Havlak's system, they would
take 10% of the representatives in the House.

>The rest of your suggestions would rip away any hope of having real people
>(voters) influence their "representatives", even worse than it is now. 
>Sorry; I don't buy it.

This is a valid criticism but one that I believe is overwhelmingly
countered by the following:

1) Representatives today have to essentially give up their basic
philosophies in order to support local causes. This leads to such
paradoxes as liberal anti-militaristic Democrats supporting local
military bases and conservative laissez-faire North Carolina
Republicans supporting tobacco subsidies. It's no wonder that most of
them are seen as such hypocrites. They *have* to be to survive.

2)As Paul pointed out, the whole gerrymandering system is ridiculous.
It leads to weird artificially drawn district lines and gives the
powers-that-be a great political advantage.

3) This would solve the voting rights act problems. If, say, the
Hispanics saw themselves as a political entity that needed political
representation, they could have a party and get their representatives
elected in proportion to their numbers.

4) It would provide more diversity to the political scene. Currently,
the Democrats and the Republicans have a stranglehold on the politics
of this country and the system leaves everyone outside this mainstream
disenfranchised. Proportional representation would allow minority
interests (both political and ethnic minorities) to be fairly
represented in the legislature.



I think a balance between one house with proportional representation
and one with regional or local representation would be a good balance
between Chris's concern for voters' influence and the concerns listed
above.




On a similar subject, I've often wondered why such a system isn't
implemented in city councils. Most councils seem to be elected in one
of two ways - either by popular vote for separate "places" or by
single-member districts. The first disenfranchises minorities and
neighbourhood interests while the second leads to members who don't
necessarily need to have the interests of the whole city at heart. Why
not try the following: allow voters to choose n members in their order
of preference and then tally votes by counting n points for a first
place vote down through 1 point for an nth place vote. This would make
the vote city-wide while ensuring local representation.

Any comments?

-- 

Siddarth Subramanian          INTERNET: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas                 UUCP:     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth