General Discussion

mwooldri

(10,818 posts)

52. Dare I suggest... "Party Lists"?

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 09:03 PM

Jan 2015

Instead of voting for a particular person, people vote for a political party. Thus this can open the way for multi-party politics. It might mean that a state gets represented by someone who didn't get anywhere near the majority vote but got enough votes to gain a single seat.

Then again, does an upper chamber have to be representative of the whole population? If the House served four year terms, had half the seats decided on party list vs. candidates, and the Senate becomes a "Revision Chamber" then I think that this would be more representative of the people even if the Senate had 90% Republicans.

Only a handful of people in the UK decides who represents the people in the House of Lords - that is if you can call it representative at all. However then the House of Commons can push through anything via the Parliament Act, so the Lords are a "talking shop" and the Queen is a "rubber stamp" when the Parliament Act is whipped out. But then the UK parliament isn't exactly representing the country as a whole based on party vote proportions. Can't blame the Lib Dems for not trying... the Cons and Labour have a lot to lose if the UK did have a more proportional voting system - hence the AV Referendum failed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

149 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans [View all] Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author panader0 Jan 2015 #1

How does gerrymandering affect Senate seats? n/t cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #2

Wyoming gets 2 seats and California gets 2 seats WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #16

That's not gerrymandering n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #18

not in name but in fact WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #21

Oh, OK SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #22

I'd whack the Senate WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #23

Then you believe SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #24

Every state has to deal with that. California is home to "Texans" and "Oklahomans" WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #28

No...just make the Senate half the size of the House Ken Burch Jan 2015 #141

The 435 seats in the House are apportioned among the states by population after every census. amandabeech Jan 2015 #143

Which is all tied to the morally-discredited "three-fifths" compromise Ken Burch Jan 2015 #144

and DC gets NONE, even though DebJ Jan 2015 #139

Not gerrymandering. That does not exist in the Senate. Senators are elected by popular madinmaryland Jan 2015 #3

My mistake oops panader0 Jan 2015 #5

Senators are installed after large sums of money are alocatted towards them nolabels Jan 2015 #65

America's version of the Parliamentary Rotten Boroughs First Speaker Jan 2015 #4

it's certainly not gerrymandering hfojvt Jan 2015 #6

Where did I say Gerrymandering? Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 #8

I guess SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #9

Why sarcasm? rogerashton Jan 2015 #32

I'm not in favor of one party rule SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #33

And what does that have to do with this thread? eom rogerashton Jan 2015 #63

Seriously? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #64

I thought this thread was about minority rule -- rogerashton Jan 2015 #66

Perhaps you should take a second to re-read the exchange SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #69

So you are happy with the minority rule that the op pointed out? rogerashton Jan 2015 #70

We are not under minority rule SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #77

You disagree with the OP, me, and the facts. eom rogerashton Jan 2015 #115

Your "facts" are questionable SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #116

Then you must not really be all that sick of the one percent. villager Jan 2015 #79

Right... SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #81

Well, it's a good thing that that laid-out government eventually gave slaves "personhood" villager Jan 2015 #82

Some citizens votes have always gone unheeded SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #83

It's interesting how vociferously you defend the rule of the one percent villager Jan 2015 #84

The House represents a majority who voted. former9thward Jan 2015 #102

Actually, no. Due to gerrymandering, Democrats received more House votes villager Jan 2015 #103

No, not this year. former9thward Jan 2015 #109

But it happens in years when D's get millions more votes, as well villager Jan 2015 #111

No, it was a necessary and enlightened compromise that helped form the union. branford Jan 2015 #119

Alternatively, we could have proportional representation in the Senate. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #125

Where did I say that you said gerrymandering hfojvt Jan 2015 #60

Not this year. former9thward Jan 2015 #100

And for the umpty millionth time SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #7

Yet you are sick of the one pct. Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 #11

So what? Once again, we see how people in small states have a disproportionate pnwmom Jan 2015 #54

We know how it's set up and why. OnionPatch Jan 2015 #86

Of course you have a right to say so SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #96

It just seems to me like OnionPatch Jan 2015 #113

If you feel you're being treated unfairly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #114

Bringing up the fact that the Senate actually represents thucythucy Jan 2015 #127

Youre name is revealing Ramses Jan 2015 #142

What an odd post SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #145

So would you solve this by forced relocation of people so every state has the same population? onenote Jan 2015 #10

Me? I would get rid of the Senate Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 #13

Me too. Maybe we'll have that someday mountain grammy Jan 2015 #40

Parliamentary systems are hardly free of strife and inefficiency, branford Jan 2015 #121

Our system would probably work fine without the money and corruption.. mountain grammy Jan 2015 #122

Humans are selfish and imperfect, branford Jan 2015 #123

Interesting idea. Sadly we never see any much needed governmental changes on the national level. maddiemom Jan 2015 #149

Maybe we could redraw all state boarders to achieve the same effect hughee99 Jan 2015 #14

I think Wyoming, Idaho and Montana should be one state, and North and South Dakota should be one, Vattel Jan 2015 #15

Maybe California should be gladium et scutum Jan 2015 #38

Give all 50 states one senator, and apportion the rest according to the population at large... First Speaker Jan 2015 #20

^^^^^^representation according to population^^^^^^^ Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #29

We have that. Indydem Jan 2015 #101

No, we do not, that is representation according to gerrymandering. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #107

This was due to the Great Compromise. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #12

which gave slave owning states Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 #17

The end effect was California vs. Wyoming. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #19

the end effect is you got Judge Thomas Ichingcarpenter Jan 2015 #30

So amend the constitution MohRokTah Jan 2015 #34

Yep SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #36

An alternative could be to bring government closer to the people HereSince1628 Jan 2015 #68

You cannot amend the Constitution to reduce or change the state's representation in the Senate, kelly1mm Jan 2015 #88

Sure you can. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #89

No, you really can't. Article 5 is the 'Amendment' Article of the Constitution. It sets kelly1mm Jan 2015 #90

GOOD POINT! MohRokTah Jan 2015 #94

Exactly. Even less likely because of unintended consequences. In my opinion, if a Constitutional kelly1mm Jan 2015 #104

There are ways to do it. NYC Liberal Jan 2015 #128

I do not believe you can amend by appeal a section of the constitution that has it's entire kelly1mm Jan 2015 #129

There's nothing that says that section itself can't be repealed. NYC Liberal Jan 2015 #132

This is an excellent article and it makes a good case... mountain grammy Jan 2015 #43

This is a particularly silly statistic onenote Jan 2015 #25

+1000000 n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #26

You are correct, and this is a good point. SpankMe Jan 2015 #47

Changing this would require a constitutional amendment Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #27

100% correct SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #31

You couldn't get a 2/3 majority in the Senate, either. eom MohRokTah Jan 2015 #35

You cannot amend the Constitution to reduce or change the state's representation in the Senate, kelly1mm Jan 2015 #91

Interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #92

The Senate was never supposed to be about Democracy davidn3600 Jan 2015 #37

That's because Red States have lower populations.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #39

RI was a bastion of religious freedom surrounded by puritans dsc Jan 2015 #61

That may be how it STARTED but as John Oliver says, "Why is this still a thing?" Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #62

Jeb Bush...Please Pay Attention billhicks76 Jan 2015 #41

If the people of this country are stupid enough to let Jeb, another Bush be elected in this short appalachiablue Jan 2015 #93

It may or may not happen, but .. dawg Jan 2015 #108

C'MON...Bush Sr Has Been Running Things Since 1975 billhicks76 Jan 2015 #118

There's some truth to that. dawg Jan 2015 #120

Yes Thank You!!!!! billhicks76 Jan 2015 #124

It may be time to add some senators jmowreader Jan 2015 #42

This is truly a danger to our democracy. kentuck Jan 2015 #44

Wait, what? As if there are only ever 2 parties, and they are always equal?!?!? X_Digger Jan 2015 #45

I guess they would have to include independents and others? kentuck Jan 2015 #49

those are talk radio states and the only reason the GOP is still in the running certainot Jan 2015 #46

Not only Americans, Dems. have given Hate Media free reign for 20+ years. And it shows. appalachiablue Jan 2015 #95

This is an issue that should be taken seriously Hutzpa Jan 2015 #48

yes, I totally agree, that is how elections are stolen dem in texas Jan 2015 #50

I'm all for getting rid of the senate, sulphurdunn Jan 2015 #51

Looking at the behavior of the House versus the Senate over the last few years, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #58

The argument for oligarchy and against democracy sulphurdunn Jan 2015 #73

Dare I suggest... "Party Lists"? mwooldri Jan 2015 #52

A perfect way to give power to the Todd Akins. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #55

The British system is really similar to ours -- rogerashton Jan 2015 #67

The problem with party lists is that people in the same party can be very different LeftishBrit Jan 2015 #146

I wonder if the Founders edhopper Jan 2015 #53

I doubt that it was even on their radar screens. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #56

And they were just trying to keep the country together. edhopper Jan 2015 #57

They were sure of it, that's why they made hughee99 Jan 2015 #71

They were sure there would be edhopper Jan 2015 #75

In 1770 VA had about 450k people hughee99 Jan 2015 #76

Umm... yeah. They did because they saw it then. bobclark86 Jan 2015 #133

yes edhopper Jan 2015 #135

Yeah, the would have... bobclark86 Jan 2015 #136

I am well aware of the history edhopper Jan 2015 #137

There are forces far more powerful than us keeping these assholes in power. Initech Jan 2015 #59

Hey, don't you people know that empty acreage is more important than actual people? Arugula Latte Jan 2015 #72

"The Senate is a profoundly anti-democratic body and should be abolished." Indydem Jan 2015 #74

+1000000 n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #78

hmm.. GummyBearz Jan 2015 #85

Wouldn't that be grandson? Revanchist Jan 2015 #134

Youre right GummyBearz Jan 2015 #140

"It's not supposed to be Democratic" is a bug, not a feature. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #112

Interesting all the defense of minority rightwing rule that this post sparks... villager Jan 2015 #80

fix this in this cycle WRH2 Jan 2015 #87

That's the way it's intended in the Senate LittleBlue Jan 2015 #97

Thanks Founding Fathers for such a great democracy! tabasco Jan 2015 #98

A parliamentary system has its own problems. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #99

True, but people knew who to blame or credit for what the government was doing. dawg Jan 2015 #110

This message was self-deleted by its author valerief Jan 2015 #105

Those 20 million voices will not be heard. nt valerief Jan 2015 #106

Maybe that's because this country is owned and ruled by the minority not the majority . geretogo Jan 2015 #117

I guess you don't understand the constitution and the fact that beachbum bob Jan 2015 #126

if repugs were in this position they'd be screaming like maniacs and playing victim samsingh Jan 2015 #130

That why we also have the House of Representatives oberliner Jan 2015 #131

This article shows how the GOP has fraud the election system, sammy750 Jan 2015 #138

No - this article shows the arrangement made 200+ years ago to buy the support of smaller States... brooklynite Jan 2015 #147

No, this article shows how statistics can be made to show almost anything onenote Jan 2015 #148