Proportional Representation Amendment

[StevenNick]

Due to the controversy over the redistricting plans, I would like to propose a constitutional amendment that would completely end redistricting entirely.  I think this has shown to be a great weakness of the constitution.  It leads to confusion as districts will be constantly redrawn.

Proportional Representation Amendment
Upon ratification of this amendment, all district boundaries will hereby be frozen regardless of potential voter registration disparities between districts.

Each district will hereby receive one representative to the forum senate per six registered voters.  Every six months a census will be taken to determine the number of voters in each district.  Each district will receive at least one representative to the senate regardless of the number of registered voters.

Well guys, how does it sound?

[JohnFKennedy]

That is an interesting idea actually Stevennick, I will think on it.

[StevenNick]

That is an interesting idea actually Stevennick, I will think on it.

It actually wasn't my idea, to give credit where credit is due.  I think it was Brambila who suggested it on a different thread.

[JohnFKennedy]

That is an interesting idea actually Stevennick, I will think on it.

It actually wasn't my idea, to give credit where credit is due.  I think it was Brambila who suggested it on a different thread.

Ah, well, Brambila, this is a good idea.

I will sleep on it and then make a speech in favour or against, it is an interesting concept and one I could get on board with.

[The Dowager Mod]

up to a max of ten?
and will every district have at least one senator?

[ilikeverin]

Why don't we just use regions for this and totally scrap districts

[StevenNick]

Why don't we just use regions for this and totally scrap districts

We could certainly.  The whole regions districts thing was a major mistake to begin with and I think something needs to be done to fix the situation.

[ilikeverin]

Why don't we just use regions for this and totally scrap districts

We could certainly.  The whole regions districts thing was a major mistake to begin with and I think something needs to be done to fix the situation.

Then again... what will governors do now?

[7,052,770]

an interesting idea. . . not sure if i like it or not yet

[StevenNick]

Why don't we just use regions for this and totally scrap districts

We could certainly.  The whole regions districts thing was a major mistake to begin with and I think something needs to be done to fix the situation.

Then again... what will governors do now?

Actually this would make so much more sense for governors.  Right now governors are the executives or regional entities that have no power, authority, or reason for exitence.  Scrapping districts and moving to proportional representation from regions would make so much sense.

Then the Governors could start going about the business of passing legislation on the regional level if they so desired.  But then again, the governors never really did have much to do to begin with.

[7,052,770]

If a region has 60 voters, then won't they send 10 senators of the same party?

[StevenNick]

If a region has 60 voters, then won't they send 10 senators of the same party?

I suppose once a region gets that big it should really be split up.  

[JohnFKennedy]

If a region has 60 voters, then won't they send 10 senators of the same party?

Nope, I believe proportional representation means say:

UAC: 30%
Democrats: 30%
Republicans: 20%
UL : 20%

That would mean the Senators they send would be as follows:

UAC: 3
Democrats: 3
Republicans: 2
UL: 2

They are allocated proportionally by their percentage of the vote.

[7,052,770]

If a region has 60 voters, then won't they send 10 senators of the same party?

Nope, I believe proportional representation means say:

UAC: 30%
Democrats: 30%
Republicans: 20%
UL : 20%

That would mean the Senators they send would be as follows:

UAC: 3
Democrats: 3
Republicans: 2
UL: 2

They are allocated proportionally by their percentage of the vote.

oh ok.
So each citizen would vote for a party but not a candidate, and then each party could fill the seats with whomever they'd like?

[Beet]

Then will people be voting for a candidate or a party? How will it be decided which nominees a party will run?

I suppose this could be done by some kind of preference voting as well, and the person with the highest preference vote will be the first person from a particular party to win a seat based on the party's result. In this case there will only be party line voting and no split-ticket voting.

[Beet]

Otherwise we could just stick to preference voting for candidates and somehow add up the "score" that each candidate recieves, so that there is a minimum threshold of preference votes for winning a seat. Although voters will likely have to rank a lot more candidates, and this may lead to the problem of parties having to assign which voters vote for which candidate in order to put the most of their members above the threshold.

[Fritz]

I don't think the amendment as written says that at all, JFK.  The point made by Harry is valid- the majority party in a region is likely to control most/all of the Senate seats.

This bill needs a little work.  When and how are senate elctions to be held now?  Will we elect the entire Senate all at once, like the US does with the House?  Or will we continue to have staggered elections?  And if so, how will the elections be staggered, if a region has, say, 3 seats?

[StevenNick]

Then will people be voting for a candidate or a party? How will it be decided which nominees a party will run?

I suppose this could be done by some kind of preference voting as well, and the person with the highest preference vote will be the first person from a particular party to win a seat based on the party's result. In this case there will only be party line voting and no split-ticket voting.

There's a lot of ways that part of the process could work.  For instance, say there were a total of three senate seats at stake in an election.  Each party could conduct a preferential voting primary in which three candidates would be selected.  The candidate with the highest vote totally would get the first senate seat should the party win one, the second would get the second seat the party won, etc.  If the party only won one seat, only the top primary candidate would become a senator.

Or we could even hold party primaries after the elections.  Say in a region of three senators, the UAC won two seats and the republican won one.  At that point the UAC and the republican parties could hold open primaries, in which the winners would automatically be elected to the senate.

Of course, there are many other ways this could work.

[JohnFKennedy]

I don't think the amendment as written says that at all, JFK.  The point made by Harry is valid- the majority party in a region is likely to control most/all of the Senate seats.

I was merely going on how Proportional Representation works, however, there is normally a threshold of say 15% in order to be able to earn a seat.

[Beet]

Then will people be voting for a candidate or a party? How will it be decided which nominees a party will run?

I suppose this could be done by some kind of preference voting as well, and the person with the highest preference vote will be the first person from a particular party to win a seat based on the party's result. In this case there will only be party line voting and no split-ticket voting.

There's a lot of ways that part of the process could work.  For instance, say there were a total of three senate seats at stake in an election.  Each party could conduct a preferential voting primary in which three candidates would be selected.  The candidate with the highest vote totally would get the first senate seat should the party win one, the second would get the second seat the party won, etc.  If the party only won one seat, only the top primary candidate would become a senator.

Or we could even hold party primaries after the elections.  Say in a region of three senators, the UAC won two seats and the republican won one.  At that point the UAC and the republican parties could hold open primaries, in which the winners would automatically be elected to the senate.

Of course, there are many other ways this could work.

What you described is exactly what I was thinking. However I think it would be better in general if the voters had some idea of whom they were voting for. While they would not be voting for specific candidates, they would at least know which candidates would benefit from their vote if the primaries were held prior to the election. Secondly, even with this caveat, this may discourage split ticket or cross-asile voting, for example if people from the UAC or Left parties wanted to support someone like PBrunsel in a race like this, they wouldn't be able to do it without supporting potentially all GOP candidates.

[Fritz]

When we hold elections, we vote for CANDIDATES, not for parties!!!!!

I strongly oppose any bill that would change this.

[KEmperor]

I STRONGLY oppose this.

[Platypus]

I suggest a compromise. The New Zealand system.

In New Zealand, half the votes are cast for a party, and half for an individual in a seat. This means that independents still have a chance to be elected, and also that small parties have a slightly greater chance of winning some seats in parliament.

It's kind of like the australian senate, where you can find a One Nation Senator, a couple of Greens, and a handful of Democrats, when it is very very rare for them to win a seat in the lower house that is elected seat-by-seat.

So I suggest:

"That the constitution is amended so that senators are elected as such:

1. One half of the senators shall be elected by region, by preferential voting, by candidate.

2. One half of senators are elected nation-wide, by preferential voting, by party.

All previous amendments and bills, as well as any other articles and clauses, that contradict this amendment be submissive to this amendment."

So, regions would have senators to represent them specifically, districts would be gone (although I stuill teink they are a good idea, I can see that the forum disagrees and it is necessary to come up with a good and lasting compromise), and the nation as a whole would have a vote.

In the end, the senate would probably look like this:

Regional members:
2 UAC
1 DEM
1 SRP
1 IND

Nationwide members:

2 UAC
1 DEM
1 GOP
1 UL

Total:
4 UAC
2 DEM
2 GOP/SRP
1 UL
1 Independent

but that's just an approximation.

[StevenNick]

I just have a problem with the way the redistricting has gone so far and I think there should be some kind of regional continuity.  Proportional voting is one way to solve this problem.

I'm very open to suggestions as to how to solve this problem in a way that is acceptable to everyone.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Why are the govs doing it??? Why can't we the people do it. Everyone makes a map of how they want it. Then the senate votes on which ones they like. Then the top 2 will come back to the people and the people will vote on it....