So the recent British election has been a great time for me (and you, the reader) to look at think about the way democracy works here in the U.S. and possibilities for change to make the system work better. On Monday I wrote a post called “what does it mean to be a democracy?” where I talked about two changes I saw as being beneficial, namely preferential voting and proportional representational.
The recent House of Commons elections in Britain yielded no party with a majority of seats/representatives, and thus a coalition had to be formed to create a parliament and thus bring a new prime minister. The Conservatives elected the MPs (members of parliament), with Labour not too far behind and the Liberal Democrats the “spoilers” with a respectable third place showing — and thus the party of import for the aforementioned coalition. Thus, both top parties courted the LDs, and ultimately a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition was formed (and the bedfellows are just as odd as their names suggest).
Part of what the Liberal Democrats demanded in the final coalition agreement was a referendum to see if the public would desire a voting system similar to the kinds I was proposing (which would almost definitely benefit the numbers of Liberal Democrats in parliament). Thus, some further good information about proportional representation has become available this week I wanted to share.
First, here is an great display of different voting systems and how they can skew the representation for particular parties. The current U.S. system obvious benefits the main two parties, as it similarly does in the U.K., and thus why it takes the third party getting involved to make any change happen. Voting Reform: what are the options?
Also, in the mid-80s, John Cleese of Monty Python fame did an interesting 10 minute spot on the benefits of proportional representation, and it can be found embedded here: Clegg’s Prize May Be New Voting System
A few notes: first, the sizes of population and parliament in the U.K. and U.S. must be noted.
|Total population||# in Lower Legislature House|
|U.K.||62 million||650 (House of Commons)|
|U.S.||309 million||435 (House of Representatives)|
You’ll notice that the U.K. has a much smaller population, but over 200 more representatives. Thus, each district in the U.K. has about 95,500 people per rep, while the U.S. has a staggering 711,000 people per district — over 7 times the number of the U.K.! Thus, for equal proportion, the U.S. would need about 3240 members in the House of Representatives! — Obviously our districts have gotten too big, and proportional representation would better represent the views of the electorate without growing the size of our legislature.
Comments to my last blog (by my brother!) mentioned the need for regional representation, and I think distributing House seats to states based on their size, and then having proportional representation in those states would be the best way for this to happen. And as far as I can tell, each state is on their own in determining how their state representatives are allotted, so states could make these changes individually. And I’m sure in larger states, you’d get people from different areas in those states running, and thus still have even more locally diverse representation.