Proportional Representation ensures that nearly every voice will have some representation in the legislature
One measure that could benefit the will of the people all across the state would require amending the state constitution, but its benefits would resolve two problems associated with our current methods of selecting state leaders. The idea is also unpopular, as it would require a different way of choosing representatives. Still, proportional representation is an idea worth discussing.
Currently, state law has each State Senate district divided into three separate smaller districts. Each of these districts is represented in turn by an Assembly-person.
Do each of these senate districts require three separate Assembly leaders, or could they be better served by having just two? Separating the districts into halves rather than thirds would free up 33 Assembly seats, which could in turn be chosen through a method of proportional representation (or PR for short).
PR works in a very simple way: rather than electing individual candidates, voters choose their preferred party on the ballot. That party would then select the representatives to be sent to the Assembly depending on the proportion they received. With a blended version of elections, voters would be able to choose their Assembly representative, their State Senator, and their preferred party.
The PR totals would be tallied up, and the remaining 33 Assembly spots would be divided based upon the vote totals. Suppose Republicans received two-thirds of the PR vote and Democrats gained one-third. Twenty-two of the seats would go to Republicans with the remaining 11 going to the Democrats in this example.
Would this benefit the state in a positive way? Consider the current electoral maps that were recently redrawn by state Republicans. Although a majority of voters in 2012 selected Democrats to represent them in the Capitol, Republicans won majorities thanks to the gerrymandered boundaries they drew that worked to their advantage. The Assembly, in turn, remained in GOP hands, again despite the fact that voters overwhelmingly chose Democratic candidates over Republicans.
By incorporating PR into the equation, 33 of the seats that were won would be up for grabs in a statewide party vote. Since the Democrats received 53 percent of the vote in Assembly races in 2012, they’d receive 17 of those 33 seats up for grabs; Republicans would get about 16 seats. So, nothing much would change in the short term, at least when you look at the election from this point of view.
But there are two benefits of PR that are often overlooked. The first is that it allows citizens to vote for third parties rather than the common Democratic-vs-Republican match-ups that we’re used to having to choose from. Indeed, if instead of a 50-50 split between the two parties, we saw 35 percent for Democrats, 35 percent for Republicans, 15 percent for the Green Party and 15 percent for the Constitution Party, there would be an increased number of lawmakers in the Assembly that represented the people’s true interests. In short, voters wouldn’t be wasting a vote by voting for the third parties; Green Party voters -- as well as Constitution Party voters -- in the example above, could expect to see five representatives for each party in the Assembly, a representation that hasn’t been seen because of the nature of our two-party system.
There is a second advantage to a PR system that is equally beneficial: No matter what happens, there will likely be a representative for everyone in the legislature that a voter had a hand in selecting.
Under the current system, voters either “win” or “lose” completely. If you vote for Senator and Assembly candidates that lose, there isn’t really anyone in the legislature that truly represents your interests. Sure, you still have an Assembly-person or a Senator to call if you want; but if you didn’t vote for them, they likely sit on the opposite sides of the issues that you stand for. A Republican in Madison or a Democrat in Waukesha is all-too-familiar with this problem.
By placing 33 Assembly spots in a PR system, that voter who didn’t “win” either the Assembly or Senate races they participated in will still have someone whom they voted for, a member of the party they chose on the ballot, in the Assembly. In this way, representation at the state level is guaranteed almost for everyone who votes in any election, so long as the party they support gets around a minimum of 1.6 percent of the vote.
A PR system of elections isn’t perfect; it doesn’t allow voters to select their specific representation. Still, a blended electoral system, which incorporates the traditional system with a PR system, would provide all voters a greater chance at having someone who will listen and fight for issues that matter to them in the Assembly.
I don't agree with you on much, Chris, but I do think that this idea has some merit. The main drawback I would see is that it would change the purpose of the Assembly, that being to represent the interests of geographic regions according to the will of the people. I would almost instead favor keeping the Assembly and using PR for an enlarged Senate. The problem with the Senate - both state and Federal - is that each senator represents a huge number of people. By doing away with the state Senate in its current form, enlarging it, and basing it completely on PR, we'd be able to keep smaller-scale geographic representation while still enjoying the benefits of PR.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I fear with PR is that it could serve to enhance rather than reduce partisanship. In a perfect world, we'd get a good number of representatives from the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Socialists, Progressives, Tea Party, etc., but my fear is that there aren't enough voters who would take the time to educate themselves and we'd end up with the same mix of Republicans and Democrats. As I mentioned, I don't agree with you on much, but I appreciate the fact that are engaged, and I bet we can both agree that we'd all be better served by having more diversity in political views in government rather than just the two options we have now. What is a pro-marriage equality, pro-abortion rights, anti-corporate welfare, anti-social welfare, anti-public union, pro-public education, pro-private union, flat tax-supporting fella like me to do otherwise? :-)
Anyway, I was playing devil's advocate. I think that it's an interesting idea a good starting point for an honest conversation about how we can improve our representative form of government. It's a shame that the powers-that-be never have any interest in doing anything that might disrupt the entrenched system, regardless of the party in power.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post, and for the thoughtful response. I wanted to respond to a couple of your points as well, and keep this conversation going. I’m glad you think that this idea warrants conversation, and I think that the people of Wisconsin would overwhelmingly want to talk about this further, if an honest conversation were actually held on it.
Delete“The main drawback I would see is that it would change the purpose of the Assembly, that being to represent the interests of geographic regions according to the will of the people.”
That’s why I suggested only removing 33 Assembly seats. Another 66 Assembly districts would still exist, still representing voters in a geographical sense (their boundaries would obviously grow, to make up for the number of districts that were placed into PR). However, your suggestion of changing the purpose of the Senate would also serve the same end -- though I personally think it’d be more possible to change a third of one house of the legislature rather than an ENTIRE house.
“The other thing I fear with PR is that it could serve to enhance rather than reduce partisanship...my fear is that there aren't enough voters who would take the time to educate themselves and we'd end up with the same mix of Republicans and Democrats.”
I have no doubt that Democrats and Republicans would still receive votes in the PR model, and what’s more receive most of the votes. But PR would still bring about a more diverse number of parties to the legislature. It would also make the legislature just that more representative to the overall will of the state. If 90 percent of the state WANTS Republicans or Democrats to be in charge, then that should be reflected in the legislature. As for whether voters educate themselves or not, we live with that worry no matter what the electoral system is. Fortunately for us, Wisconsin has historically been a politically active state.
“It's a shame that the powers-that-be never have any interest in doing anything that might disrupt the entrenched system, regardless of the party in power.”
Agreed. I personally view myself as a Democrat, but I don’t think that the current system in place represents the people’s will appropriately. PR could do something to change that, even if it’s just a little bit through a blended system.
The best way to gain momentum for such a change would probably be to have solidly blue states do this first. For example, Hawaii, where they have 24 Democrats and 1 Republican in the Senate, and 44 Democrats and 7 Republicans in the House. Or Vermont, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts.
DeleteThis would do two things. First, it would show that we stand for better governance even when it doesn't favor our party (Republicans would actually gain seats with this model in some states), and second, if it actually worked well in those states, it would seem less weird and foreign.