Rethinking IRV, PR, Range Voting, Election Reforms

My interest in FairVote.org has become more mixed.  I like the idea of Proportional Representation, and have proposed an idea for it recently.  I'm less sure about Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) because I'm not sure it will be as effective as Range Voting at defeating Duverger's Law, but I think even the gesture of IRV might increase the visibility of other political parties. (But I think we might be able to do better.)

Some of the other FairVote reforms, I don't like so much.  First of all, I think the 26th Amendment is not a good thing for several reasons.  One is that it takes power away from the States to decide when their youth are entitled to be part of the decision-making, and rather unnecessarily.  The rationale, I believe, was that those young enough to give their lives were young enough to elect the Commander-in-Chief.  (Young women got this benefit for free, since they were never subject to draft -- and feminism was nary so critical of this.)  This was all right as far as it goes.  I would be all for an Amendment that guarantees the right to vote for those serving or having served in the military.  I would be all for there being a separate vote in the Electoral College for those in military service (makes sense to me) and a legal guarantee that their votes will all be counted.  (Did Al Gore do the same thing?)  I think the general effect of the 26th Amendment is that it adds to the pool of votes those more likely to make decisions based on what they were told about history rather than what they've experienced of history.

Plus, the "old enough to die for their country" argument has, I think, a bit of an insidious implication: that somehow youth are being sacrificed by the older people.  We are generally talking about their parents voting for the Congress that declares war (or in the 21st century, the President that unilaterally declares war).  For most youth (hopefully, still) there are two eligible voters that have a vested interest in them not dying.

Elections to the Imperial Senate

I don't think I have the energy to tackle the recent article about throwing away our Constitution.  We can either amend what we have or we could have a convention; but I don't see how it makes sense to rewrite the whole thing because it's just too hard to have a consensus for amending it.  If we can't form a consensus to amend it ...

Anyway,  I've had several passing thoughts about institutional changes that could be done through amendment, if not permitted by the current revision of the Constitution.

I've conjectured recently about better representation by the House of Representatives, and even conjectured about a third house of Congress (which might not need an amendment since the IPAB is supposedly Constitutional).

Now my thoughts turn to the Senate.

The House Is Not Representative

I've been thinking of a way that a large state would have its people better represented by its Congressional Representatives and guard against the abuses of biased redistricting.  I'm thinking that the single-member district idea isn't the best we can do.

So here it is:

First, the simple version:  Proportional Representation.  Each qualified party (last election there were 7 in California) has a primary in which the party's candidates are ranked.

All the Representatives for the state are being determined at the same time.   If the Green Party gets 11% of the Proportional votes, approximately 11% of the Representatives will be chosen from their top ranked candidates (probably the top 4 candidates).  If the Libertarian Party gets 17% they might get their top 7 candidates in.  (I believe this is called party list proportional representation.

Second, the feature of Party Seats.   Let's say that 10 of the 53 Representative seats are Party Seats.  The top 10 political parties as determined by state membership each get one of these seats.  Which would mean 7 seats currently filled this way in California.

The Third House of the Legislature

In light of our worsening budgetary problems, I'd just like to explore a fanciful idea about adding a third House to our federal Legislature with the following considerations in mind:

1.    The menu is determined by those who are paying the bill. Democracy shouldn't be two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. People that take more from the government than they provide shouldn't be able to simply vote themselves money at their neighbor's expense.
2.    Americans should have more direct say on how such a considerable slice of their income gets spent. Of necessity, they can't control all of it, but they can at least override the influence of their legislators to some degree. If a citizen does not want his money spent on defense, he/she can earmark up to 50% of his/her income for something else. If she wants 30% to go to Social Security and 20% to pay the debt, she can do this.
3.    Each district would get financial representation that would be answerable, not on policy of who gets which entitlements (that's for the Senators and Representatives to work out with lobbyists and special interest groups), but to be judged solely on certain financial matters. The Senate and the HoR can still spend the money on wasteful enterprises, but they won't be able to arbitrarily run us into debt to do so. Meanwhile our financial representatives would have no say over culture war issues. They will mainly act as our budget balancers and investigate how our money is being spent. They determine how much the other Houses get to waste.
4.    Not just anyone should be allowed to act as our accountants. Most legislators have legal training (lot of good it does them) and not much business sense beyond how to exploit the political process to make money. This is really, really, really bad for the rest of us.

With these considerations in mind, I introduce the Third House of our new Tricameral Legislature by Amendment 28 to the Constitution!

Why the Election System Needs to Change

Whether or not the conditions for Duverger's Law are well understood, the principle seems to be alive and well in America.  Most of us know that where we might have minority party candidates we prefer, choosing one of them drastically increases the odds of electing the majority party candidate we like least.  It is demoralizing whether one votes for someone who had little chance of winning or votes for someone for whom they had little hope.

For example, if Ross Perot had persisted in the 1992 election, it's very possible that Clinton would not have been elected.  Looked at another way, Perot's withdrawal from the race along with his curious plug for Clinton makes one wonder whether strategic withdrawal is yet another inherent weakness in the system.

Let's say that in 2007, the electoral system had been adjusted to allow instant run-off voting.  Now, imagine that we had a different scenario in 2008.  As Barack Obama takes the lead in his party, instead of agreeing to become Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton forms the Progressive Party and runs against him.  In other circles, Gary Johnson represents the Libertarian ticket.  Ron Paul forms his own Change Party ticket.  Newt Gingrich forms a Conservative ticket outside the GOP.  And good old "maverick" McCain still heads the GOP ticket.  Not to mention the indomitable Ralph Nader.

Now that's an interesting election!  In this alternate universe, many people that voted for Obama in this universe might have picked Gary Johnson as their first choice, followed by Hillary and then by Obama.  Or picked Nader first followed by Obama and then Hillary.  Or Ron Paul, followed by McCain, followed by Hillary.  Some that voted for McCain, in the alternate universe may have picked Ron Paul, followed by Gingrich, followed by Johnson, followed by McCain.  Others might have picked Johnson, followed by Paul, followed by McCain, followed by Gingrich.

And how would this Babel be resolved in instant run-off voting?  In the more interesting case (in which people actually prefer minority party candidates to the GOP and Democrat choices), it may have to go through several rounds of elimination votes.  First Nader is eliminated and those ballots are reevaluated to count for the next preferred candidate.  Most of these votes get are distributed between Clinton, Obama,  Paul and Johnson.  Let's say the next eliminated is Gingrich.  Most of his votes get distributed between McCain, Paul and Johnson.

In the next round, McCain is eliminated and most of his votes are distributed between Johnson and Paul.  Obama gets eliminated next and his votes are distributed between Clinton, Johnson and Paul.  Ron Paul  is eliminated and most of his votes go to Johnson.  Maybe Johnson wins,  maybe Clinton wins.  It all depends on the order of preference selected by each voter.

As you can see, the least preferred candidates, the least objectionable by the most people, get eliminated first.

But there is even more to it than this.  You can prefer a candidate without worrying about throwing away your vote.  You can truly come closer to voting your conscience.  This is encouraging to voters.  It also encourages alternative platforms.   It allows a true reformer to come out of nowhere and convince voters of both camps that he has something they might prefer to that offered by their previous party of choice.   It increases competitions among platforms and decreases the polarization of the Two Party system.   It also increases the likelihood of more voters feeling that the election winner represents them to some extent.

I think many Independents, Democrats, and Republicans often feel that they are choosing which crook can represent their interests best.  I believe IRV would be a step in the right direction.