>>> Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net> 05/05/99 12:08PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
> 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: I wouldn't say Detroit's elections are depoliticized or less " political" than partisan elections.
>
> CB: Are you saying there is no Constitutional barrier to PR ?
>
None. Except of course, the Senate.
CB: That's interesting. So as long as the state sticks to the total number of Representatives based on its population, it doesn't have to have districts. The state could be one big district and the proportion of the whole delegation for each party would be based on it proportion of the whole vote of the state, as long as it was a minimum percentage of the whole ?
>
> (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.
CB: Yes, the interpretation. Are you saying there has been an interpretation of the relevant Article I provisions by a court ? Where is the basis for the current non-PR system ? In the state laws ? What language in the 14th Amendment are you referring to below ?
> 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.
CB: OOOPS !! I think I follow you now. So, "open" primaries cut against the democratic logic of PR. I have to think about this more though, because, I'm not sure that PR is the whole ball of wax of democracy.
> 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.
CB: I don't want to knock PR but it is still R , that is "representative" or republicanism. I tend to think of increasing democracy as increasing DIRECT democracy. Any comment on that ? Is there a synthesis of PR and other institutional changes toward greater democracy like more initiatives and referenda ?
Charles Brown