> 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.
It's a mixed bag. There are state election codes, but these don't necessarily touch on the issue of PR either way.
> 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 ?
All California local elections are non-partisan -- part of a nationwide legacy of the Progressive Era, which was largely fueled by the success of socialists and working-class (non-machine) Democrats. The result is depoliticization -- in place of politics, "competence", "honesty", "efficiency", etc. The exact OPPOSITE of what's needed.
>
> CB: Are you saying there is no Constitutional barrier to PR ?
>
None. Except of course, the Senate.
>
> (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.
Except that a Constitutional change isn't necessary, though a reinterpretation would be enormously helpful.
> 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.
True indeed.
> 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.
Precisely.
> 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.
And what better subject for a mass movement than democracy istelf? Not in isolation from its fruits, of course.
> > 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 ?
No, I'm afraid you misunderstand me on two counts. First, the open primary simply means that people can vote for any candidate of any party. This doesn't tend to favor independents so much as it favors centrists -- which generally means conservative Democrats.
Second, I don't think this is a good thing at all. Why? Because it favors centrists, and discourages the development of ideological parties. This is why the Greens and Libertarians opposed it, and they were absolutely right to do so. PR would favor a GREATER degree of ideological articulation in the legislative arena as well as the electoral arena. But open primaries favor greater pandering to the lowest common denominator.
What is good about this is the motivation of disgust and distrust with the top-down special-interest controlled parties. But without sufficient reflection, the cure is often worse than the disease -- or even an extension of it.
> 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.
It's certainly an option worth pursuing -- along with others.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"