Notes from
"American democracy at the start of the Biden presidency"
Bright Line Watch January-February 2021 surveys
(http://brightlinewatch.org/american-democracy-at-the-start-of-the-biden-presidency/?campaign_id=30&emc=edit_int_20210402&instance_id=28742&nl=the-interpreter®i_id=45966794&segment_id=54737&te=1&user_id=cbaf3bf1af1ce76b14f86863895013b5)
Four broad types of political rule
expert rule (“Having experts, not the government, make decisions according to what they think is best for the country”),
strongman (“Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with Congress and elections”),
military (“Having the army rule”), or
democracy (“A democratic political system”)
Mot U.S. survey respondents supported democracy.
Experts were asked their opinion on these reforms. Note that many are already in use in Canada.
I would also point out that Alberta and Manitoba provincial elections 1920s to 1950s used multi-member districts and transferable voting (ranked-choice voting), together creating STV, with good results.
But the reform presented here under the name "ranked-choice voting" might be the use of transferable votes to elect only a single-member in a district. This majoritarian system is what in Britain today and in old Canada is/was called Alternative Voting. A majority are represented in each district but there is no attempt at proportionality.
Regarding "Flexibility on when and how to vote", the Notley government passed law that any voter could cast his or her vote anywhere in the province but only for candidates running in the district where the voter lives.
Redistricting commissions we already have non-partisan redistribution commissions. But the FPTP system we use still ensures much fragmentation of the voting public and much waste of votes.
I believe we once did have "Public funding of campaigns" at the federal level but Harper cancelled that.
16 prominent reform proposals
(in order of popularity among experts polled)
Campaign finance transparency
Flexibility on when and how to vote
Redistricting commissions
Same-day voter registration
Suffrage for ex-felons
Campaign finance regulation
Election day on national holiday
Public funding of campaigns
Pre-register young voters
National popular vote
Ranked-choice voting
18-year Supreme Court terms
Eliminate filibuster
Multi-member districts
Enlarge House of Representatives
Compulsory Voting.
These reforms can be grouped into three groups:
1. to increase voter participation, particularly among traditionally marginalized groups.
2. to reduce the influence of large individual and corporate campaign donors in U.S. elections
3. to convert voter support into representation.
4. to reform the conduct of governance rather than elections.
1. The largest group aims to increase voter participation, particularly among traditionally marginalized groups. Increasing flexibility on when and how ballots can be cast (95% support), guaranteeing suffrage rights to ex-felons (91%), same-day registration (91%), moving Election Day to a national holiday (87%), and pre-registering young voters (85%) all attracted support from more than four in five experts.
By contrast, compulsory voting was supported by only 29% of experts, perhaps reflecting discomfort with the manner by which it tries to increase participation as well as recent research on the range of unintended consequences it can generate, including disillusionment with democracy itself.
2. Another group of proposals seeks to reduce the influence of large individual and corporate campaign donors in American elections. These include increased transparency on the source of donations, providing public campaign funding, and amending the Constitution to impose greater restrictions on private spending. All these garner strong support among the experts (98%, 87%, and 88%, respectively)
3. A third set of proposals focuses on the rules for converting voter support into representation.
At the top of this list is requiring states to establish non-partisan redistricting commissions to reduce partisan gerrymandering (95% support).
Next, at 84%, is support for switching to a system in which the president is elected by direct popular vote instead of by the Electoral College.
Two electoral reforms - ranked-choice voting (78% support) and eliminating the requirement for Members of Congress to be elected from single-member districts (73%), Both aim to open paths to electoral success for candidates other than those who can prevail in either Democratic or Republican primary contests.
Enlarging the House of Representatives (64%) would increase the ratio of representatives to citizens, allowing for a more fine-grained mapping of representatives’ characteristics onto constituent preferences
4. The last two proposals focus on the conduct of governance rather than elections. The first would limit the period for which federal judges could serve on the Supreme Court to 18 years (77% support), guaranteeing a vacancy on the Court every two years. This proposal seeks to reduce the stakes for high court appointments and thereby cool the attendant politics both during elections and in the day-to-day operation of the Senate. The next would eliminate the 60-vote requirement to suspend debate in the Senate, eliminating the filibuster and effectively returning the chamber to majority rule (74%).
========================
Explanation of the 16 reform proposals
Enlarge House of Representatives Substantially enlarge the House of Representatives through federal legislation to make it and the Electoral College more representative of the nation’s population
Ranked-choice voting Introduce ranked-choice voting in presidential, congressional, and state elections.
Multi-member districts Repeal the 1967 law that mandates single-member districts for the House so that states have the option to use multi-member districts on the condition that they adopt a non-"winner-take-all" election model.
Redistricting commissions Federal legislation requiring fair congressional districts to be determined by state-established independent citizen-redistricting commissions.
Campaign finance regulation Amend the Constitution to authorize the regulation of election contributions and spending to limit the undue influence of money in our political system.
Campaign finance transparency Pass strong campaign-finance disclosure laws in all fifty states that require full transparency for campaign donations, including from 501(c)(4) organizations and LLCs.
Public funding of campaigns Pass “clean election laws” for federal, state, and local elections through mechanisms such as public matching donation systems and democracy vouchers, which amplify the power of small donors.
18-year Supreme Court terms Establish, through federal legislation, eighteen-year terms for Supreme Court justices with appointments staggered such that one nomination comes up during each term of Congress.
Flexibility on when and how to vote Give people more choices about where and when they vote, with state-level legislation in all states that supports the implementation of vote centers and early voting.
Election day on national holiday Change federal election day to Veterans Day to honor the service of veterans and the sacrifices they have made in defense of our constitutional democracy, and to ensure that voting can occur on a day that many people have off from work.
Same-day voter registration Establish, through state and federal legislation, same-day registration and universal automatic voter registration.
Pre-register young voters Establish, through state legislation, the preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds and provide educational opportunities for them to practice voting as part of the pre-registration process.
Compulsory voting Establish, through legislation, voting in federal elections to be a requirement of citizenship. All eligible voters would have to participate or submit a valid reason for non-participation.
Suffrage for ex-felons Restore federal and state voting rights to citizens with felony convictions immediately and automatically upon their release from prison.
National popular vote Change to a system in which the president is elected by direct popular vote, instead of by the Electoral College.
Eliminate filibuster Change US Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, allowing a simple majority of senators to bring any proposal to the floor for a vote.
=========================================================
So interesting.
I hope that the U.S. and Canada soon adopts multi-member districts where a non-"winner take all " system is used. That condition would mean no Block Voting, for example. Block Voting is now the bane of most city elections in Alberta, although not recognized as the evil that it is.
Multi-districts would allow the use of Single Transferable Voting, which proved itself in 150 elections in Canada, as my recently-published book When Canada Had "Effective Voting" STV in Western Canada 1917-1971 describes. (See other recent blogs for details).
======================================================================
Check out my blog "List of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
As well, please consider purchasing my booklet "When Canada Had Effective Voting" STV in Western Canada 1917-1971. 68-page overview of Canada's PR experience in the last century - the fight for proportional representation, the adoption of STV by 20 cities and two provincial governments in the 1920s, and STV's final use in a government election, in the 1971 Calgary city election.
Available through AbeBooks.com or email me at montotom@yahoo.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year is the:
* 100th Anniversary of United Farmers of Alberta party being elected on promise to bring in electoral reform, a promise fulfilled three years later.
* 50th anniversary of the last STV city election in Canada. Calgary elected 14 city councillors through STV, and then switched to FPTP for city elections. By that time, more than 54 years after the first STV city election, anyone old enough to have voted using X voting in a city election would have had to be 75 years old.
* 50th Anniversary of election of Lougheed's Progressive-Conservatives. With only 46 percent of the vote they took more than 60 percent of the seats. NDP received 11 percent of the vote but elected just one (Grant Notley), instead of the nine MLAs it was due.
====================================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine:
"Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure.
Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice.
The three principal systems of proportional representation are
the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep],
the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and
the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts.
The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] --
This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated."
(From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180)
Thanks for reading.
========================================================
Comments