Should we elect the House of Representatives through PR?

[Peter the Lefty]

I've been thinking, PR would be a great way to have a truly representative House of Representatives.  It would end the two party system, and force the parties to work together.  What do you think?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While it'd be better than the current system for a variety of reasons, it wouldn't result in any real additional cooperation, it'd just mean the current two parties would split into a broad coalitions of separate parties.

[minionofmidas]

The two parties wouldn't break up. Not while the mode of election of the President, State Governments, etc remains unchanged. Exact effects would depend on the mode of election, of course. National PR, just like National Popular Vote, would force the feds to get massively involved in state election procedures (otherwise you amplify your election disputes problem a thousandfold), which would actually be constitutional but violates a lot of "states rights" / unwritten constitution feeling. Of people who wield power. Statewide PR, obviously the chances of minor parties getting in decline dramatically except for California and I suppose a Libertarian from Texas (but he's basically there already). Then there's the matter of the exact system used, and of open lists vs closed.

[minionofmidas]

What it would certainly result in is an end to ugly gerrymandering, which is certainly good enough to clinch the deal on its own... but also to fair representation (and at the end of the decade, overrepresentation) of the big cities, especially the ones with lots of noncitizens in them.

[Franzl]

Depends on the type of PR.

[Peter the Lefty]

Depends on the type of PR.

Plain old Proportional Representation.  You vote for a party, and the seats are allocated to each party based on its share of the vote. 

[Franzl]

Depends on the type of PR.

Plain old Proportional Representation.  You vote for a party, and the seats are allocated to each party based on its share of the vote. 

In that case no, I'll take any district based system, including FPTP, over closed list voting.

[Badger]

Maybe bi-cameralism where one house is elected by district (as the H of R currently stands) and the other is elected by PR?

Oh, and maybe a minimum threshhold of, say, 5%, to keep every certifiable band of lunatics to get a quarter of a percent (or 1/435th) of the national vote from having their loony sit in Congress?

[Peter the Lefty]

Maybe bi-cameralism where one house is elected by district (as the H of R currently stands) and the other is elected by PR?

Oh, and maybe a minimum threshhold of, say, 5%, to keep every certifiable band of lunatics to get a quarter of a percent (or 1/435th) of the national vote from having their loony sit in Congress?

Yes.  With a Senate where each Senator represents a district, each of which are relatively equal in population.  (Most populous district and least populous district must be within 5% of each others' population).  How about a threshold of 4-5%.   

[minionofmidas]

5% is an insanely high threshold. That's one in 20 people, endorsing one particular set of candidates. When you think about it, really the surprising thing is that any single party should aquire that high of a share of the vote in a democratic election not marred by tactical constraints.

[Peter the Lefty]

I guess you're right.  5% would be a bit high.  Still, it's nothing compared to the 10% threshold they have in Turkey.  Let's put it this way: If the threshold were what you wanted, would you favor this system?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And no thereshold in PR would mean something like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_1991

[Mechaman]

Depends on the type of PR.

Plain old Proportional Representation.  You vote for a party, and the seats are allocated to each party based on its share of the vote. 

In that case no, I'll take any district based system, including FPTP, over closed list voting.

^^^^
This.
Being somebody who generally disapproves of the mainstream parties individual candidates matter more than party.  While I disapprove of the Republican Party I have a high opinion of guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and although the Democratic Party is pretty fail I would probably vote for Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold if given the chance.
Individual choice is more important than "vote in bulk" if you will.

[bgwah]

Could preferential voting be included, too? Meaning, if someone voted for a party that didn't meet the threshold for a single seat, they could have their vote transfer to their 2nd favorite party, etc?

[Bacon King]

Could preferential voting be included, too? Meaning, if someone voted for a party that didn't meet the threshold for a single seat, they could have their vote transfer to their 2nd favorite party, etc?

That's actually a really good idea. Does any nation have a system like this? Is there even a name for it?

[Frodo]

Broadly speaking, yes.  I am still making up my mind on which kind of PR system we should use. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Depends on the type of PR.

Plain old Proportional Representation.  You vote for a party, and the seats are allocated to each party based on its share of the vote. 

In that case no, I'll take any district based system, including FPTP, over closed list voting.

^^^^
This.
Being somebody who generally disapproves of the mainstream parties individual candidates matter more than party.  While I disapprove of the Republican Party I have a high opinion of guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and although the Democratic Party is pretty fail I would probably vote for Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold if given the chance.
Individual choice is more important than "vote in bulk" if you will.

If we had this system, you'd be able to vote for the Libertarians have it actually mean something.

[Del Tachi]

In theory, I guess its a good idea.  But I would much rather prefer a statewide PR to a national PR.

But I still voted "no"...and this is why.

Under a statewide PR...

1) You're now voting for a party rather than a person...that just seems very un-American to me...this isn't a parliamentary system!
2) Congresspeople would no longer be accountable to voters in their respective districts, they would be representing all voters in a particular state.  Local issues would be ignored at the federal level.  Government is best when it is closest to those be governed.
3) By mid-to-late decade population distribution could have changed so much that some parts of the state are now exerting a huge amount of influence on the federal government while some more rural parts of the state get almost no influence.
4) The current system means that there is a geographical balance in congressional representation because all congresspeople must be residents of their respective districts.  Under this system the Republican Party of Texas could appoint all of their representatives from the Dallas-area while the Dems all appointed people from Austin.  Now those area yield enormous influence at the national level.
5) The PR system makes it much more likely that 3rd party candidates would get seats in the Congress.  This could result in a situation in which no party has a congressional majority, a "Hung Congress".  This can be disastrous, just look at our neighbors across the pond.  Only we can't call for new elections... 

and finally,

6) WHAT HAPPENDS TO INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Del Tachi]

Also, if the House of Reps goes to a national PR, then what is the need for a census?

[Middle-aged Europe]

1) You're now voting for a party rather than a person...that just seems very un-American to me...this isn't a parliamentary system!

I fail to see the direct connection between PR and parliamentarism here.

The UK has a parliamentary system, but no proportional representation (at least not at the national level). On the other hand, there are a number of nations with a presidential system where the legislature is elected through PR... Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, and Cyprus, for instance.

[Badger]

5% is an insanely high threshold. That's one in 20 people, endorsing one particular set of candidates. When you think about it, really the surprising thing is that any single party should aquire that high of a share of the vote in a democratic election not marred by tactical constraints.

I'm not wedded to the 5% figure, but for debating general standards I strongly disagree that it is "an insanely high threshhold". The biggest dampening factor im support for third party candidates is the FPTP system which generally makes a vote for a third party candidate "wasted". The mere prospect of getting actual representation in return for votes would probably push the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution Parties past the 5% mark quite easily. Other parties would likely follow their initial success from there.

[Del Tachi]

1) You're now voting for a party rather than a person...that just seems very un-American to me...this isn't a parliamentary system!

I fail to see the direct connection between PR and parliamentarism here.

The UK has a parliamentary system, but no proportional representation (at least not at the national level). On the other hand, there are a number of nations with a presidential system where the legislature is elected through PR... Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, and Cyprus, for instance.

PR reminds me of the "parliamentary dilemma".  In a parliamentary system there is no division between the legislative and executive branches of government.  Thus, every election cycle some voters are faced with the following problem:

Voter: "Damn, I hate my local representative...but I love his party's candidate for PM.  How should I vote?  Either way, I'm screwed...

or

Voter: "Damn, I hate my party's candidate for PM...but I love my local representative (who is a member of the same party).  How should I vote?  Either way, I'm screwed...

Under a PR system, I could see how a similar problem would find its way into the American political scene.

Let's say that PR is used for the 2012 U.S. Congressional elections. 

In my state, based on the statewide vote, Republicans are awarded three of Mississippi's four Congressional  get one.  The Republicans appointed (by who?  That's another problem that PR must address) are all  zealots who want to legalize homosexuality.  I do not approve of this.

Two years later, in 2014, I am faced with a dilemma. 

I still consider myself a Republican, albeit a  one.  I like the policies of the Republican Party at the national level.  However, I am not enjoying the garbage spewing from the lips of my state representatives.  However, I know that if I vote Republican it is likely that, if Republicans keep their three seats in MS, the zealots will be given another term.  Now, I'm screwed.  I AM A DISENFRANCISHED VOTER!!!

So, yeah 

[Del Tachi]

Another problem with a PR system in the U.S. would be that it would dilute the power of minority voters, especially in large states.  The VRA would be meaningless. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, if the House of Reps goes to a national PR, then what is the need for a census?

Uh, Census figures are used for way more than apportionment. Countries with PR also have censuses.

[Kushahontas]

Perhaps MMP to maintain the representative-constituency relationship?