>>> Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net> 05/04/99 01:10PM >>>
Well, yes, to effect a full-bore transformation of the entire political
system, we'd have to get rid of the Senate as it now exists.
But:
(1) PR on the local level is simply a matter of city or county law in most cases. There were dozens of cities who adopted PR in the 20s and 30s, despite fierce opposition. New York City did away with PR as part of the Red Scare in '49 or so, which was typical of how it was finally destoyed in most places, but it's still used here and there.
(((((((((((((((
CB: Ok. I'd think most of the election requirements are state statutes and constitutions. They are in Michigan. I imagine NYC's were state law.
By the way, Detroit's Mayoral/City Council elections are non-partisan, which is another way to go at your idea in a different way, n'est-ce pas ?
000000000
(2) State legislative elections are similarly under state constitutional law. Illinois had a system of limited proportional representation in its lower house for nearly a century. State which have the initiative process to amend their constitutions are ALL ripe for PR at the state level.
((((((((((((((((((
CB: Good points.
00000000000
(3) The main barrier in the House of Representatives is a law passed in the 1960s requiring single-member seats, meant to prevent the South from electing representatives state-wide to thwart black political representation. Cynthia McKinney is spearheading an effort to get this law repealed.
((((((((((((((((((((
CB: Are you saying there is no Constitutional barrier to PR ?
0000000000
(4) The perverse Supreme Court rulings (typified in Shaw v. Reno) overturning majority minority districts have a silver lining: they lay a foundation for ANYONE challenging the drawing of districts lines to dilue their voting strength. Ultimately ANY district lines will do this, and the only solution is to ELIMINATE districts entirely.
(((((((((((((((((((((
CB: Good argument, but still gotta go through Dems and Reps to make the Constitutional change.
00000000000
A REALLY RIGOROUS reading of the 14th Amendment in particular would compel the Supreme Court to find that NO districts can be Constitutional at any level, save those specified in the Constitution itself -- the number of representatives (determined by census) and senators (2 each) given to each state.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
CB: Unfortunately the current Supreme Court Injustices are in for life and they are not about to make a really rigorous reading of the 14th Amendment that is good for the vast majority of the People.
However, I applaud such rigorous readings of the Constitution for persuasion of people of what is the best way to do things, since some people respect the Constit.
000000000000
Naturally, we cannot expect the Supreme Court to make such a ruling out of the blue. Brown v. Board of Education didn't come out of the blue either. But one can see from the above that political strategies to implement PR are indeed quite practicable.
((((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Yes, the key for legal change is a mass movement pushing the Court, as with Brown v Board.
> They ain't stupid when it comes to defending their political
> advantages. They don't want to promote third parties. For example,
> they currently severely limit third party ballot access. In other
> words, the precondition for executing this plan would be to win
> the majority of Dems and Reps to undermining their own parties.
Well, they've already done so. Here in California we recently voted for an open primary system, which was opposed by ALL the parties (including Greens and Libertarians).
((((((((((((((((((((((
CB: Good for you. So that's like non-partisan candidates can run ? Like the independents who have won ?
00000000000
The real challenge is to get voters' frustration with party insularity (an already powerful force) translated into a truly constructive direction. This is where local initiatives become important, since a working example is the best advertizement.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
Chas. Yes, I agree the Ace in the hand of your plan is people don't like the parties and feel trapped. So, if you can wedge in on the local level, you might release that pentup demand.
> I say this , but I can't fulfill my obligation to propose an
> alternative plan to Paul's.
Perhaps my responses will encourage you to shift your focus to the exploration of altertives that synergize with PR, rather than competing against it.
I don't by any means see PR as a stand-alone solution to all our problems, and questions about how it interacts with other strategies, instutitions, forms of organizing, etc. are of the utmost importance.
((((((((((((((((((((((
CB: In practice, I haven't really competed against PR. I have emphasized initiatives (including constitutional amendment) , referenda and recalls. Of course, California has given initiatives a bad name, but in principle it is an advance toward more direct democracy ( as opposed to republicanism or representationalism). Perhaps the time is slowly coming when the Left will catch up to the Right in use of initiatives. Full self-governance would require people continually monitoring their government. That seems far out given today's extreme apathy ( no accident as the powers that be know an active population would be their doom). But to make any of these changes, including PR will require a revolutionary (:>)) change in the activity of the great many anyway, so lets go for it all , PR and the rest.
Charles Brown