Warren Buffett s ideas for fixing Congress

[grannywils]

MB, sometimes you drive me absolutely to drink, and I do not care about most of what you said in your above post. So what??? I still believe that the topic makes some worthwhile points and the subject matter is worthy of discussion!! :wallbash:

 

However, I must give you credit where it is due. I loved your video clip. It was quite enjoyable and enlightening. I does make one stop and think, doesn't it? :thumbsup:

[SilverDNA]

*snip*

 

2. Senate is reorganized. One Senator per-state by default, the rest are apportioned on the basis of population with the census.

 

3. The Senate is no longer able to make its own rules as a body. Its exact functioning, including the abolition of the filibuster, would then be codified--never again to be changed.

 

4. House of Representatives is elected using state party slates rather than geographic districts (to avoid gerrymandering). Seats are still apportioned by state population, however.

It sounds like you're trying to make the Senate into the House and the House into a proportional, party-list system. Why not cut to the chase and remove the Senate entirely, then move the House to a mixed-member proportional system?

 

 

The reasoning suffers from a logic fallacy due to the overuse of Occams Razor by over simplifying.

Simply by excluding the Invalid votes and saying, "only legit votes measure up 100%", which isn't a valid method of explaining the mixed-member proportional system in example video.

In the Video shown every time voters that go over to another 1st choice it is reasoned that all voters go over to the next "better" representation. Since in this process non-voters are also produced, due to various factors that are left out on purpose to simplify this explanation model.

[Marxist ßastard]

I do not care about most of what you said in your above post

Um, okay? My post was in reply to sukeban, since sukeban said these were "Mr. Buffet's proposals." Warren Buffett has nothing to do with this, and I didn't want this thread to turn into a debate about Warren Buffett.

 

If you really don't care that these aren't "Warren Buffett's ideas for fixing Congress," then as you said to me, just don't reply.

 

I loved your video clip

For people who can't view the video, here's a walkthrough of how mixed-member proportional representation works:

1. Elect representatives from local elections, either by simple majority or instant runoff.
2. On the same ballot, have people vote for "favorite political party." Lump these all together into one national result (e.g., 48% Democrat, 48% Republican, 4% Libertarian).
3. Add as many empty seats to the House as there are elected representatives.
4. Compare the makeup of the House to the result for "favorite political party." Have under-represented parties send their unelected candidates to fill the empty seats and represent the party in the House.

A known flaw of this system is that it can only fix over-representation of parties to the extent that more members are chosen by parties and fewer by local elections. In the scheme above, it's half-and-half. That would mean the House would be expanded to almost 900 representatives – and fully half of those representatives would not represent a constituency, but only their political party. Yet it still couldn't fix very severe over-representation. For example, say that Democrats win 60% of local elections, but only 20% of voters listed the Democratic Party as their favorite party, since 30% voted instead for the National Liberal Party (which doesn't participate in local elections). Doubling the size of the House could only dilute the Democrats' power to 30%, which is still a severe over-representation.

 

Here's a modification to consider:

1. Continue as above, but add a more modest number of seats to the House – say, 100 – and start with parties which don't participate in local elections.
2. Take the total number of seats minus the elected independents and use Jefferson's method to find the ideal number of seats for each party.
3. Choose the candidate from the most over-represented party who has the least total votes, and compare to the elected independent with the least total votes.
   • If the independent has more votes, throw out the other candidate. Award that candidate's seat to their runner-up in the local election, if the runner-up's party is under-represented. Otherwise award it to the most under-represented party.
   • If the other candidate has more votes, throw out the independent and re-calculate the ideal layout. Award the independent's seat to whichever party gains an extra seat in the new layout.

[*]Continue until an ideal layout is reached.

This way, fewer seats go to unelected candidates, runners-up are preferred to candidates picked by parties, the House always arrives at an ideal layout, and there's an absolute incentive to vote – districts with close elections and low voter turnout might just have their representatives pulled from the House.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[HeyYou]

So we would have equal representation of all parties, and nothing would ever get done, because no one could come up with a majority to pass any particular piece of legislation?

[Marxist ßastard]

If parties have to cooperate to reach a majority, that's an advantage in my book.

[SilverDNA]

So we would have equal representation of all parties, and nothing would ever get done, because no one could come up with a majority to pass any particular piece of legislation?

 

Since indirectly the German Bundestag and its elections was mentioned indirectly let me give you a simple overview of the disadvantages from the original German Wiki page of the MMP (Translated via Google)

 

Disadvantages of proportional representation

• Disadvantages of proportional representation danger of fragmentation of the parliament, when many parties are represented. (Examples: Italy and the Weimar Republic) - Limitation: This can be prevented by blocking clauses. - Possible consequences:
  • The formation of a government can be complicated (formation of coalitions necessary).
  • The governments may be less stable.

  [*]The voters can not decide which parties govern. - Limitation: Many pre-election coalition parties make statements.[*]In a proportional representation of voters often has no direct influence on the candidates, which feed into the Parliament, as the lists are drawn up in general by the parties. Some systems weaken with open or loosely bound lists from this disadvantage.[*]The proportional representation system is more complicated than the majority voting system.

In above mentioned example tried to give some solutions to the main problems of the MMP system.

But, this system can be abused by parties to force breakups of coalitions and getting more elections and which filling the party coffers of all parties with Political contributions, lobbying, and electoral refundable expenses to the parties.

Edited March 14, 2012 by SilverDNA

[sukeban]

@MB

 

I was originally going to suggest that the Senate be abolished, but wondered if that would be acceptable to Americans wedded to the idea that they are not just another European parliamentary state. I would prefer that we not a Senate, but I am not sure that is a view shared by very many other Americans. (Perhaps it is, however?)

 

@Silver

 

Don't most European systems establish a floor on party representation, that a party has to receive something like 10%+ in order to achieve representation in parliament? Certainly, nobody wants an impossibly fragmented body with 100 parties representing 1% of the electorate each.

 

I am not sure how closely you follow American politics, but our Senate is far more inefficient than even the most cantankerous spree of "no-confidence" votes against a Prime Minister. Our Senate simply fails to do anything for months at a time; being ineffectual is basically all that is expected of it these days. What's worse, members of the Senate serve for six-year terms and are unable to be recalled. Thus, they have barely any incentive to actually do much of anything until five years have elapsed and they are up for re-election. I know that I would infinitely prefer a system where we could recall the lot of them in a snap election if they were unable to form a governing coalition and actually do their job.

 

The American system of government has been predicated on stability and avoiding rash decisions. Ostensibly, this is why we have the Senate at all. However, extreme polarization within our two parties has now rendered actual governance nearly impossible. The Senate more or less ensures that "elections do not have consequences" because, no matter who is in power, nothing even remotely controversial will ever pass the body. Increasingly, it also means that nothing gets passed in the body at all.

 

In any case, I think most Americans realize that we need more democracy rather than less. Moving toward a proportional system would accomplish this, as well as allow more nuanced viewpoints to be heard, as no longer would all potential voices be lumped into two needlessly large parties.

 

@HeyYou

 

True, accomplishing this sort of reform would be difficult. However, I think that our country is trending in this direction. The most obvious feature of accomplishing this reform would be that it not be obviously beneficial to either preexisting political party. If it is viewed as being equally disadvantageous to both sides (by normal Americans, i.e. voters), I think that it would stand a fair chance of becoming law. Clearly, enormous public pressure would have to be brought to bear, but--just think about it--who wouldn't want to stick it to the two-party system? Congress' approval-rating is something like 9%, and has been for years. That is 91% of Americans who view the body as something glaringly in need of reform.

 

Something is going to happen in this country, but at present we're still probably a good ways off. But things cannot continue on this stupefyingly dysfunctional trajectory forever. Either our politicians will become more moderate of their own accord (perhaps if Santorum is nominated and fails miserably the GOP will rethink their current craziness) or a new framework will be imposed upon the parties by the people. I would say that the best path toward reform is to a) register independent and b) talk about it with your friends and family. The key is to keep it non-partisan though, as it isn't about empowering one party at the expense of the other; rather, it's about improving our democracy and making our country a better place. Just through dialogue at the grassroots level, Americans can begin to shift the Overton Window toward reform. It might seem like an impossible task today, but in five years--who knows? These things build over time :)

 

EDIT:

 

@marharth

 

This is known. But what's the alternative? Our politics can't carry on like this forever. Better an Amendment to the Constitution than to have our own version of Imperials and Stormcloaks running around after Congress hasn't passed a bill in seven years and our country is 75% owned by China. I joke... sort of. My greater point being that our Constitution has been amended before and it will be amended again. But the people have to demand it because, as you say, the parties will never do this themselves.

Edited March 14, 2012 by sukeban

[marharth]

You can't abolish the senate without a constitutional amendment. You can't even change the federal government structure (the three branches) at all without a amendment.

 

Won't ever happen.

[SilverDNA]

*SNIP*

 

@Silver

 

Don't most European systems establish a floor on party representation, that a party has to receive something like 10%+ in order to achieve representation in parliament? Certainly, nobody wants an impossibly fragmented body with 100 parties representing 1% of the electorate each.

 

I am not sure how closely you follow American politics, but our Senate is far more inefficient than even the most cantankerous spree of "no-confidence" votes against a Prime Minister. Our Senate simply fails to do anything for months at a time; being ineffectual is basically all that is expected of it these days. What's worse, members of the Senate serve for six-year terms and are unable to be recalled. Thus, they have barely any incentive to actually do much of anything until five years have elapsed and they are up for re-election. I know that I would infinitely prefer a system where we could recall the lot of them in a snap election if they were unable to form a governing coalition and actually do their job.

 

The American system of government has been predicated on stability and avoiding rash decisions. Ostensibly, this is why we have the Senate at all. However, extreme polarization within our two parties has now rendered actual governance nearly impossible. The Senate more or less ensures that "elections do not have consequences" because, no matter who is in power, nothing even remotely controversial will ever pass the body. Increasingly, it also means that nothing gets passed in the body at all.

 

In any case, I think most Americans realize that we need more democracy rather than less. Moving toward a proportional system would accomplish this, as well as allow more nuanced viewpoints to be heard, as no longer would all potential voices be lumped into two needlessly large parties.

 

*SNIP*

 

Might be some people didn't hear about Landtag (WIKI LINK),( Note: This link isn't a very accurate Wiki article. If you want a more accurate link translate the German WIKI link about Landtag/Landesparlament. This link. ) in Germany and how it is established through MMP system (funny how much similar this is compared to US Senate (simply compare differences and similarities), if you read up the translated page.)

Secondary Germany has a general Five-percent threshold on parties in election all under the the fife percent border are not given a seat, but still get compensation for participating in the election. English readers might get a notion on today's News headlines of Germany (LINK to "The Local" German news in English)

 

I was only clarifying dangers of the MMP system to users more familiar with the Plurality voting system (Wiki Link)

 

Oh and BTW since none of you have made a usable solution of including non-voters you might be interested in this from the view of Parties very unpopular method of including Non-Voters into election demagogy as a control group of how well a democratic country is run. ( this can only made possible with the will of the citizens not from the parties because they are least interested to establish it )

If now the percentage of non-voters is influenced in the over all measure of how positions within the government are paid and refunds to a party''s are made. The possible outcome would be in decisions closer to citizens interests.

- Example: if there are 20% Non-voters for an election, then there refunds or/and the payment of positions in government are also cut by 20%. (I hope now everybody can see why it is so unpopular within parties and why it can only be the force of the citizens that can establish this method) (this is only roughly translated from one of Hans Herbert von Arnims works)

to get even further in to detail please uses above method on the Following links ...

 

German federal election, 27 September 2009 WIKI

(62.168.489 = overall Who where entitled to vote)

Might be there is another interesting thing in demography if you compare this to

European Parliament election, 7 June 2009 (Germany) Wiki :thumbsup:

 

 

All in all it can be said again without proper adjustments to either system ( MMP or PVS) it is only the choices between Pestilence and Cholera.

Edited March 15, 2012 by SilverDNA

[grannywils]

Excellent point, Silver. We do tend to disregard the non voters. Of course, it would be nice if we could get them to vote, but I understand your point. :thumbsup: