Proportionality (continuing chatbox thread)

[The Beatles]

I couldn't resist this one.

Democracy = rule by majority, someone taking all the votes in a state they won is actually more democratic than a proportional vote

The question is which system is more democratic. The Republican model of winner-takes-all representation, or the Democrat model of proportional representation.

It isn't. This is the basis for gerrymandering. Let me give you a simple example.

Suppose we have two states and two candidates for their party's nomination in the presidential race. State A has a voting population of 100 million and sends 100 delegates. State B has a voting population of 50 million and sends 50 delegates. Candidate A has 60 million voters in State A, and Candidate B has 40 million voters. Candidate A has 10 million voters in State B, and Candidate B has 40 million voters. What happens under the different systems?

Republican model: Candidate A wins State A and loses state B. Gets 100 total delegates on 70 million voters. Candidate B gets 50 delegates on 80 million voters. Candidate A gets the nomination, and the majority loses.

Democrat model: There are no absolute wins. Candidate A gets 70 delegates for 70 million voters, Canaidate B gets 80 delegates for 80 million voters. Candidate B gets the nomination and the majority wins.

So you can see easily that the Republican method of nominating delegates is undemocratic, not to mention that it marginalises the minorities and small states. A practical example of winner-takes-all vs proportionality is as recent as the 2000 election in the US, where Al Gore had about a million more popular votes, but lost the election.

So? It's just as possible with the democrat system. Obama badly beat Clinton in number of states won, but she came out ahead on delegates by winning the bigger states.

Because it isn't on the number of states, but on the number of voters. What I described is not possible with the democrat system, because it's democratic.

And don't talk to me about parliamentary systems where representatives are seated proportionally either. The US does not have a house of parliament and candidates are elected by direct vote.

There is a great deal of difference between methods of electing one candidate versus electing 646 (the British House of Commons). I am not saying FPTP is perfect, or even the best system. For instance, here is a nice run-down of the cumulative changes that FPTP versus proportional voting can produce (a real-world counterpart to the previous example):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/engli ... 205536.stm
Example:

...the Liberal Democrats, who would have doubled their representation to about 90 MPs.

Also, candidates in the US are not elected by direct vote. Let me give a brief overview of the history for those who don't have Volkov's historical background.

When the people who formed the American systems of government did so, their idea was to take the framework of the British system of democracy, which (though not fully democratic at the time) they considered the best (the main problem was that it did not extend to the colonies, hence the cry "no taxation without representation"), and improve those areas which they did not like. To cut a long story short and focus just on what's relevant: they liked the idea of a House whose job it was to elect the head of government, a body who would be distinct from the people but responsible to it, a body with political expertise but representing the actual voters. On the other hand, they wanted to separate the legislative and executive branches of government, which were tied in the English constitution, as the Cabinet (the executive) is elected by and answerable to the House (the legislature). To sever this link, they created a third elected body in addition to the House of Representatives and Senate (based on the House of Commons and the House of Lords), which they called the Electoral College. This would have only one function, to elect the President (head of government). However, by removing the day-to-day legislative function of the House of Commons and splitting it, they effectively neutered the Electoral College. Electors are not active, independent people with day-to-day involvement in politics; they do not stake any reputation or career on their votes, and are nothing more than puppets in the electing process. The formation of political parties very soon obviated any vestige of individuality they might have had; they became just another extra step. They sometimes voted against the party line, but this never swung an election and only enraged the people. In fact, many states have made it illegal to vote against the party's candidate. So today in fact the U.S. has a semi-direct election of its president, complicated only by the states in which electors may vote as they choose (which happens with a few in every election), the fact that states are winner-takes-all, and the fact that voters in larger states have less of an impact. The effects of this are clear, as you saw in the US's 2000 election.

For completeness: the rise of political parties in Britain, the party whip, etc., has indeed reduced the power of MPs, so in effect, in both democracies, the real decision-making is in the hands of the party and the head of government, not really in the legislature anymore. Despite this, the real remaining power of MPs is illustrated by some differences between the two systems:
* Votes in Congress are almost all on party lines; votes in the Commons are often not.
* There are still real debates in the Commons; this is a formality in Congress.
* Parliamentary governments can fall at any time due to a loss of confidence by the House (a vote by MPs).

Nevertheless, if an MP is removed from his party, he can often do very little and must become an outsider from the decision-making process. This was illustrated in a scandal surrounding a Tory MP recently. Only very tenacious ones (I think Churchill omes to mind) with actual political skill can do anything about it. In the US, the Congressman has a fixed term and can participate (to the extent of his powers) until that expires.

There may be a few inaccuracies, and perhaps there will be disagreements, so I welcome debate.

[Freenhult]

How are you tying Gerrymandering into this? The redrawing of congressional districts within states isn't involved here.

[Gen. Volkov]

Republican model: Candidate A wins State A and loses state B. Gets 100 total delegates on 70 million voters. Candidate B gets 50 delegates on 80 million voters. Candidate A gets the nomination, and the majority loses.

Your example is flawed, and I'll tell you why. The primaries are on a state by state basis, therefore, the majority is having their say in their individual states. There is no national primary. Furthermore, there are only a handful of states that are winner-take-all in the republican primary. Besides which, in both your model examples, the difference in vote count was not great enough to give on candidate the election over the other. They were still about even. Oh and lastly, there were only a few winner take all states that were not decided by huge margins.

So you can see easily that the Republican method of nominating delegates is undemocratic, not to mention that it marginalises the minorities and small states. A practical example of winner-takes-all vs proportionality is as recent as the 2000 election in the US, where Al Gore had about a million more popular votes, but lost the election.

Beatles, did the majority rule in the states that voted for Candidate A? Yes? Then it's democratic.

Because it isn't on the number of states, but on the number of voters. What I described is not possible with the democrat system, because it's democratic.

Sorry, but that's BS. The small states and the minorities are still marginalized. Clinton won fewer, bigger states and came out ahead on delegates. Obama won more, but smaller states and lost on delegates. I can see how you might consider that democratic, but then you have to consider super delegates. The democrats have "super delegates" who are not bound to vote any way but their own, so tell me, how is THAT democratic? Whoever takes the democratic nomination will do it based on the super delegate vote.

There is a great deal of difference between methods of electing one candidate versus electing 646 (the British House of Commons). I am not saying FPTP is perfect, or even the best system. For instance, here is a nice run-down of the cumulative changes that FPTP versus proportional voting can produce (a real-world counterpart to the previous example):

Indeed, but even our methods of electing 535 (Congress) are different from the methods used by the Brits. All members of congress are elected by direct vote.

Also, candidates in the US are not elected by direct vote. Let me give a brief overview of the history for those who don't have Volkov's historical background

Presidential candidates aren't elected completely directly, but congressional candidates are, which is what I was actually talking about there.

* Votes in Congress are almost all on party lines; votes in the Commons are often not.

Not true actually, you need a simple majority to get things passed in Congress, the fact that so many bills sponsored by one party have failed, whether presented here and now with a democratic majority or in the past with the republican majority shows that not all or even almost all votes are along party lines. The timetable bill the democrats keep presenting has not even gotten to the president on several occasions. Bush has only had to veto a few bills, despite the democrat majority.

* There are still real debates in the Commons; this is a formality in Congress.

* There are still real debates in the Commons; this is a formality in Congress.

This depends entirely on the issue. A very vigorous debate ensued over the immigration bill.

* Parliamentary governments can fall at any time due to a loss of confidence by the House (a vote by MPs).

True, whereas our system has set terms, but that still results in a regular turnover of administrations due to the term limits amendment, though that's not true in Congress.

[The Beatles]

Your example is flawed, and I'll tell you why. The primaries are on a state by state basis, therefore, the majority is having their say in their individual states. There is no national primary.

What do you mean? Consider my example; suppose there are only two states in the Union. What is inaccurate?

Furthermore, there are only a handful of states that are winner-take-all in the republican primary. Oh and lastly, there were only a few winner take all states that were not decided by huge margins.

Fair enough, it works in some cases. It doesn't in the winner-take-alls.

Besides which, in both your model examples, the difference in vote count was not great enough to give on candidate the election over the other. They were still about even.

10 million votes in my constructed example? 1 million in Bush/Gore? Besides, how is "they were about even" a democratic justification?

Indeed, but even our methods of electing 535 (Congress) are different from the methods used by the Brits. All members of congress are elected by direct vote.

No, it's the same method. I think you misunderstand it. The point is, each MP or Congressman or batch of Congressmen or pair of Senators represents an electoral district or state. If you total up how many people across the whole Union voted Democrat vs Republican, the ratio will be different from the ratio of Democrats vs Republicans in the House of Representatives or Senate.

Not true actually, you need a simple majority to get things passed in Congress, the fact that so many bills sponsored by one party have failed, whether presented here and now with a democratic majority or in the past with the republican majority shows that not all or even almost all votes are along party lines. The timetable bill the democrats keep presenting has not even gotten to the president on several occasions. Bush has only had to veto a few bills, despite the democrat majority.

OK. To be fair though, this has not always been so, the difference between the two systems was greater in the 19th century. Today they are converging.

[edit] By the way, reading a bit more about the House of Representatives: it has kept at least one executive trait of the House of Commons: in an electoral college deadlock, it may elect the president. Never knew that.

[Gen. Volkov]

What do you mean? Consider my example; suppose there are only two states in the Union. What is inaccurate?

Let's say there are two states in the Union then. Both are winner take all. In one state, Candidate A wins, in the other, Candidate B wins. Now both states have democratically elected one of these candidates. The will of the majority was done in each individual state. That is democracy no? Your argument is that in national terms, the will of the majority was not done, but since that is not how primaries work, your argument is flawed.

Fair enough, it works in some cases. It doesn't in the winner-take-alls.

All democracies are ultimately winner takes all.

10 million votes in my constructed example? 1 million in Bush/Gore? Besides, how is "they were about even" a democratic justification?

What I was talking about was that the votes were still about even, thus neither had enough to take the nomination. You need X number of delegates to be president. That X is a very big number. In presidential elections, the electoral vote margins are much lower.

No, it's the same method. I think you misunderstand it. The point is, each MP or Congressman or batch of Congressmen or pair of Senators represents an electoral district or state. If you total up how many people across the whole Union voted Democrat vs Republican, the ratio will be different from the ratio of Democrats vs Republicans in the House of Representatives or Senate.

In the parliamentary system, your seated based on the percentages in the national election, correct? Or are MP's elected by direct vote?

OK. To be fair though, this has not always been so, the difference between the two systems was greater in the 19th century. Today they are converging.

True enough, but let's stick to the here and now for this discussion.

By the way, reading a bit more about the House of Representatives: it has kept at least one executive trait of the House of Commons: in an electoral college deadlock, it may elect the president. Never knew that.

Yes, but I don't think it's ever been used.

[The Beatles]

In the parliamentary system, your seated based on the percentages in the national election, correct? Or are MP's elected by direct vote?

In the UK, they are elected by direct vote, which is called FPTP. Parliamentary doesn't really imply anything about the election method of the representatives, just that the representatives then elect the prime minister, and that the prime minister is distinct from the president or monarch, and of course some other differences. But nothing about voting. I think Australia for instance doesn't use FPTP, and I'm sure some other European countries don't. Runoff voting and some other systems are often employed instead of FPTP.

The will of the majority was done in each individual state. That is democracy no? Your argument is that in national terms, the will of the majority was not done, but since that is not how primaries work, your argument is flawed.

No, that is not democracy. Yes, you get my argument precisely. The fact that primaries don't work that way doesn't make it democratic, it just means they are done by a pre-arranged system. It doesn't mean that system is democratic. If primaries worked like this: "Anyone with the last name Stalin automatically wins", it is not a democracy. And just because the system is democratic within each primary does not mean it is democratic on a national level.

All democracies are ultimately winner takes all.

Yes -- just how do you define winner? The winner in US 2000 was not the one with the national majority.

What I was talking about was that the votes were still about even, thus neither had enough to take the nomination. You need X number of delegates to be president. That X is a very big number. In presidential elections, the electoral vote margins are much lower.

I see. But something still has to decide between them. And that something presumably ought to be who had the most votes.


What I'm trying to say is that just because a system is democratic when you subdivide it does not mean it is democratic overall. This is why gerrymanderers divide up voting districts to favour their own results. This is why Bush won in 2000 in the US. This is why the Lib Dems aren't a viable force in the UK. If the wish of the majority of the people in your country was overruled, then even if it was due to a system which had been arranged on in advance, even if it was not malice's fault, how can you call it democratic? That is, how can you call that particular result, which is opposite the majority's wish, democratic?

[Gen. Volkov]

Place holder, will respond later, currently feel like crap.