ATS.MIX: Above Politics Show 03

reply to post by xpert11


You make a good point about the perceived power that smaller and extreme parties think they have.

The other side of this is Italy, where the smaller parties are often the power brokers and determine if a Government falls.

Originally posted by Martin Bain
The other side of this is Italy, where the smaller parties are often the power brokers and determine if a Government falls.

Well locally I don't rate the chances of either of the two major party's chance of governing by themselves unless the likes of New Zealand First were to disappear. In terms of the risk of having extremists elected I think that is where NZ small population works in our favour for once . Maori separatists and there synthesises aside there may not be enough members of extremist elements to get over the five percent threshold.

There are other issues as well and by extremist I don't mean the Greens I mean the likes of racial hate groups and so on. I understand that both Germany and New Zealand both use MMP.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by xpert11]

So, the next question might be...how would you go about implementing proportional representation in the U.S.? Would it take a Constitutional amendment? This would be a hard sell. How would you do it?

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Justin_Case]

The member Don White has a plan for a basis that MMP could operate him. So I would contact Don about any Constitutional amendment. I will out line what I addressed in my podcast in order to answer your question. Here is Don original post

The Foundations

Combine the House and the Senate .
Four year and six year terms as there are currently .
Congress would pass laws and approve treaty's as per usual .
Congress would reserve the right to adopted MMP.
Election process to take no longer then one year.

Implementation

Well it would be simpler or more likely that a state or city adopted MMP.

Assuming MMP was adapted at federal level there would be no electoral college . MMP would be adapted so if needed people get up to three party votes. Otherwise it would as per usual with party's needing five percent of the party vote to gain office or gain a US version of an electoral seat. The party vote and the electoral vote do not have to be for the same party.

Admittedly I haven't explored how the primary process would work but it would be something like this . Either a national primary with three or four rounds of voting is held and candidates who reach a certain percentage of the party vote could stay in the game.

This could be done on a state by state basis . The make up of the presidential elections would depended on if the minor party's decided to run candidates . But something similar to what is described above is what immediately springs to mind.

Related notes.
New Zealand has no lower house. Due to the differnt levels of support a candidate can get across geographical areas state by state primary's may no longer be feasible. Note under the parliamentary system there are no primary's so this is where no man has gone before . All ideas are welcome.

Somebody should get Don White to come on over here and chip in.

I'm still not clear on how you'd sell this to the American people. I'm sure they'd insist on a vote of some kind. Maybe even several.

reply to post by Justin_Case


Without a doubt you would have to have a referendum on the issue. As for selling the idea to the American people well the argument would go along the lines of having your voice and vote count. No longer will a candidate be able to win the popular vote and still win an election . Comprise rather then rubbing stamping of ideas , bills and the end of the two party system. General speaking all change begins at the grass roots level.

Its not the selling of the idea that would count the most it would be the proposed political systems that could have the most impact . I have read that when Australia voted on its constitutional future people that supported there country becoming a Republican voted to retain the monarchy because they didn't like the idea of parliament selecting the country president.

It would be naive to think that the corporate media wouldn't ridicule the idea. Clearly people that hold the constitution close to there hearts and/or are close minded wont support reform. I am not saying that it would be an ease sale but it is crucial that the product is of good quality from the outset .

I present MMP as a working model. The US could adapted a unique system as needed . The Founding Fathers were inventive in a political sense. I will U2U Don .

reply to post by xpert11

The member Don White has a plan for a basis that MMP could operate him. So I would contact Don about any Constitutional amendment. I will out line what I addressed in my podcast in order to answer your question. Related notes. New Zealand has no lower house. Due to the different levels of support a candidate can get across geographical areas state by state primary's may no longer be feasible. Note under the parliamentary system there are no primary's so this is where no man has gone before . All ideas are welcome.

Thanks for the nice words, Mr X11. Background. In 1775, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia. It produced the Articles of Confederation between the 13 colonies. Article 1 gave us our name, “The United States of America.” The name stuck although the Articles did not. Commonwealth posters may get a tickle reading our optimistic, maybe jingoistic Article XI.

The Articles featured an unicameral legislature. Unfortunately the Articles were filled with other unworkable provisions. Although each of the 13 states was allotted 3 to 7 members of Congress based on its population, each state voted as a unit with but 1 vote. Regardless of population. Worse, the Articles did not provide for an executive. When the Congress was in session, it exercised not only the legislative power but the executive power as well.

If it could possibly be worse, when Congress was out of session, a committee of 13, one from each state, served as the executive power. Before a decision could be taken, a majority of 7 votes was needed. And last, the Congress had no power to tax. Congress could only request money from the states, based on populations and not on wealth. As it turned out, only 3 or 4 states responded regularly with money when Congress requested. The others just ignored the requests by Congress.

After gaining independence from Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the 13 colonies staggered along trying to make the Articles work. Aside: it was widely believed by the ruling class in England that the colonies would return to the Crown after a short time going it alone. End.

By 1787, it was obvious to the leaders of the fledgling country the Articles would not serve for a unified country. A Constitutional Convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. Meeting in the heat of summer between May and September and pledged to keep proceedings and votes secret, the creme de la creme of America’s leading people hammered out a document we still use today albeit with 27 additions, deletions, improvements or alterations.

George Washington, for example, was elected president of the newly convened Convention. Elder statesman and in some eyes, the man most critical to the success of the recent revolt Benjamin Franklin, was in attendance. Franklin was world renowned as a scientific experimenter and a successful inventor as well as the publisher of America’s most popular book - after the KJV - “Poor Richard’s Almanac,” an annually published book no American household would be without.

But lurking in the dark was the one issue that divided America. Slavery. Two leading farm crops depended on slave labor to be profitable. Tobacco and rice. Both were cash crops and were our major export items. Both crops were grown predominantly in the south because each needed lots of sunshine - long growing season - and plentiful rain. (Cotton only became “king” after Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin on March 14, 1794).

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia - the most populated state - Maryland and Delaware relied on slave labor for their agricultural products. The New England states were already agitating for the abolition of slavery. To keep the 6 slave labor states onboard, a means to give the slave states a veto had to be found, should any future Congress vote to outlaw slavery.

To make short this overly long introduction to the topic, altering America’s present system of governance, let me finish with this recap. Everyone at the Constitutional Convention knew a strong central government was in the offing. The large differences in population between the 13 states presented a hurdle hard to overcome. Look here to see how the House membership was allotted before the first census was taken. “New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

A bicameral legislature was determined upon. The Senate or upper chamber, was allotted equally to the states, 2 senators each regardless of population. To further enhance their senior status, senators were given six year terms. Further, to curtail the commoners impulse for democracy, senators would be chosen by the state legislatures, the bastion of the wealthy ruling class. To partially restrain the executive branch’s power in foreign affairs, treaties required a 2/3rds vote for approval.

To offset the power of the Senate, it was provided that all taxing bills must originate in the House, the junior branch. To make it more acceptable to the lower classes of Americans, House members would be chosen by direct vote every 2 years. This is the “democratic” part of the republic.

The House was given the sole power of impeachment. The power to initiate any removals from office. Charges of impropriety would be brought by the House but the Senate would sit as the jury to determine guilt or innocence. Last, the judiciary was given life time appointments - during good behavior - because they really had no other power beyond moral persuasion.

The power of judicial review currently exercised by our judiciary was not successfully asserted until the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, who sat from 1803 until his death in 1835. He is most notable for his precedent setting landmark case holding in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall asserted the Federal courts had the inherent power to review all acts of both the legislature and the executive. It is still good law.

And therein lies the current form of government at the Federal level. IMO.

[edit on 2/19/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Change in America, Installment No. 2

The smaller American states are, in inverse order, smallest population first, WY, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, and MT. Those seven states have 1 representative each. The next 5 states have 2 representatives each and continuing in inverse order by population are, RI, HA, NH, ME and ID. The 12 states need but one more state to join them to PREVENT any constitutional amendments that would deprive them of their disproportional but highly favorable WEIGHTED representation. The next 5 states each have 3 representatives. The states are NE, UT, NV, MN, and WV. Any one of those 5 states added to all the first 12 states, can block any constitutional action we want to see take place. The residual power of slavery rears its ugly head more than 140 years after the Civil War! OTOH, had the compromise not have been made in 1787, we might not have a potentially unified country to argue about! Note my use of "potentially unified." Not yet, but maybe sometime.

This is why I first proposed combining the House and Senate into a unified unicameral legislative body. (Redundant?) I think it improbable the less populated states would give up (voluntarily) the extra clout they have in our present system.

Mixed Member Proportional Electoral Systems

What is a Mixed Member Proportional Electoral System?

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral systems are a form of proportional representation (PR). An MMP model combines – or mixes – the proportional features of a list-PR system with the local representation of a single-member plurality system. That’s how it gets its name.

Under MMP systems each voter has two votes: one for the party of their choice and one for the electoral district candidate of their choice. How are seats awarded in an MMP electoral system? The total vote received by each party is the basis for determining the exact number of seats (list or district) awarded to that party. The legislature is composed of some members elected through a party list and the rest elected in individual districts.

Winning candidates are those who are at the top of the party list, or those who are successful in the single-member districts. Here’s an example of how it works: Start with a legislature of 100 seats – 50 seats are elected from single-member districts and 50 seats are elected from party lists. If a party wins 40% of the popular vote, it is entitled to 40% of the seats. In a 100 seat legislature that would mean 40 seats.

If that party has already won 35 seats in the single-member districts, then it would receive an additional 5 seats from its party list (the top 5 names) to bring it up to the 40 seats it was entitled to receive. If that party already won 40 single-member riding seats, it would not receive any additional seats from the party list as it had already achieved the exact proportion of seats it was entitled to based on the 40% popular vote it received.

Parties must win a certain percentage of votes to be eligible for seats under an MMP system. This is called a threshold. This is typically set at around 5% of the vote. Only those parties gaining this minimum number of votes start to be eligible to pick up party list seats. This is meant to prevent a splintering of the legislature with a lot of small or extreme parties who are not representative of the majority of voters. en.wikipedia.org...

It looks good to me. Now the question is, how do you convince Americans it would work for them? And in my opinion, cure several of the very serious problems we now face but under our system, we cannot solve.

[edit on 2/19/2008 by donwhite]

Well MMP could be sold as the only way of bringing about genuine change to the political landscape. The likes of Libertarians and any other group that may not have representation should be targeted. All I can say is that once you have a working model that can answer the questions that will be asked of it that you start speaking in town halls . Throw in the usual website (not ATS recruitment is against the T&C ) where supporters can co ordinate there efforts .

Another cog in the wheel is the fact that the same method of voting isnt always used at the differnt levels of government . While MMP is used at national government level while at the local council level a preference voting system. So in effect even if city's and states in the US adopted MMP it might not correspond with the Federal government adopting the system.

reply to post by xpert11

MMP could be sold as the only way of bringing about genuine change to the political landscape. The likes of Libertarians and any other group that may not have representation should be targeted. All I can say is that once you have a working model that can answer the questions that will be asked of it that you start speaking in town halls. Throw in the usual website where supporters can co ordinate there efforts.

Many good ideas in one short paragraph, Mr X11. I’m going to take them to heart.

Another cog in the wheel is the fact that the same method of voting isn’t always used at the different levels of government.

Our electoral process is broken at every level. City, county, school boards, state legislatures and the US Congress. IMO it would be more beneficial to reform the Congress than the other bodies, and it would be easier to focus attention on Congress. Most American have NO idea who is on the city council and more importantly, who is on the School Board. Unfortunately, most of them DON’T CARE. They operate under the ignorance is bliss theory.

I also HATE public initiatives. If you think legislatures are dumb, then you haven’t seen anything until you turn the voters loose. Recently the R&Fs just got one passed in FL increasing their property exemption from $250K to $500K. This means a cut in public school revenue of more than 10%. But hey, if your grandkids are in private schools who gives a dam? There’s no inheritance tax in FL either. Maybe you can't take it with you but you sure as hell can keep it in the family!

See www.elections.org.nz...

NEWS OF NOTE: Fidel has retired, Long Live Raul! Long Live The July 26 Revolution!

[edit on 2/19/2008 by donwhite]

Don, that's an interesting point of view. I'm not so sure the majority could be sold on proportional representation at this time. It woulhave to be tried out in a State before anyone would take it seriously. I would hate to be the guy who had to run for President with MP in his platform. Ouch.

Well I hear by nominate Alaska and Florida as states to used as a testing bed for MMP . I can see it now TV ads with the slogan " Patriots for MPP . "

Cheers xpert11.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by xpert11]

Alaska? Hm. I suppose they might be expendable. Florida? Do we really want to trust that kind of experiment to Florida? They seem to be having a lot of trouble with the elections process late.

it has been brought to my attention that Xpert11 made a podcast about Proportional Representation, and he gave THE ABOVE POLITICS SHOW a good mention.

Justin_Case
Don, that's an interesting point of view. I'm not so sure the majority could be sold on proportional representation at this time. It would have to be tried out in a State before anyone would take it seriously. I would hate to be the guy who had to run for President with MP in his platform. Ouch.

xpert11. Well I hear by nominate Alaska and Florida as states to used as a testing bed for MMP . I can see it now TV ads with the slogan " Patriots for MPP." Cheers

Justin_Case
Alaska? Hm. I suppose they might be expendable. Florida? Do we really want to trust that kind of experiment to Florida? They seem to be having a lot of trouble with the elections process late . .

Well, Alaska is too far away. It is not representative of America. Florida is not much better, politically speaking. Severely gerrymandered but it is #4 in population with 16 million. And growing to 25 million by 2030. IF and I say again IF the water holds out.

Florida needs electoral reform. There were between 10,000 and15,000 uncounted ballots in the 2000 fiasco. The US Supreme Court said the tally was +537 for Bush43. America’s first designated president. And if GOD loves us like we love HIM, B43 will be the last one.

I’m going to try to arouse support for MMP in Florida. From time to time I’ll let you know what’s happening.

[edit on 2/20/2008 by donwhite]

For those who are not familiar with MMP I suggest that you listen to my earlier podcast . It isnt practical to offer an overview of MMP every time it is mentioned.

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11

For those who are not familiar with MMP I suggest that you listen to my earlier podcast .

What is a Mixed Member Proportional Electoral System?

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral systems are a form of proportional representation (PR). An MMP model combines – or mixes – the proportional features of a list-PR system with the local representation of a single-member plurality system. That’s how it gets its name.

Under MMP systems each voter has two votes: one for the party of their choice and one for the electoral district candidate of their choice. How are seats awarded in an MMP electoral system? The total vote received by each party is the basis for determining the exact number of seats (list or district) awarded to that party. The legislature is composed of some members elected through a party list and the rest elected in individual districts.

Winning candidates are those who are at the top of the party list, or those who are successful in the single-member districts. Here’s an example of how it works: Start with a legislature of 100 seats – 50 seats are elected from single-member districts and 50 seats are elected from party lists. If a party wins 40% of the popular vote, it is entitled to 40% of the seats. In a 100 seat legislature that would mean 40 seats.

If that party has already won 35 seats in the single-member districts, then it would receive an additional 5 seats from its party list (the top 5 names) to bring it up to the 40 seats it was entitled to receive. If that party already won 40 single-member riding seats, it would not receive any additional seats from the party list as it had already achieved the exact proportion of seats it was entitled to based on the 40% popular vote it received.

Parties must win a certain percentage of votes to be eligible for seats under an MMP system. This is called a threshold. This is typically set at around 5% of the vote. Only those parties gaining this minimum number of votes start to be eligible to pick up party list seats. This is meant to prevent a splintering of the legislature with a lot of small or extreme parties who are not representative of the majority of voters.

Hello D.W., thanks for stopping in! I hope you're listening to THE ABOVE POLITICS SHOW. You'll have to let us know how it goes in Florida during the upciming general election.

Well, glad to find this thread and will now have to start listening to Above Politics. I've been weighing in on the Clinton Obama thread since end of January and just today mentioned Constitutional Convention Two. In searching on this site I'm again finding I have lots in common idealogially with Don White.

At any rate, it will be very interesting to see what will happen now with the Democrats in terms of election process issues and potential reforms. If they're smart they can show significant leadership here by going all the way with the scrutiny and solution seeking. Could Howard Dean be the modern Ben Franklin here?

Perhaps I'm getting carried away.

Hello peace82670! glad you like the show, and I hope to hear more from you in the future. Another convention to ammend the Constitution? Wow!