> >>> 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.
If so, they're the exception that proves the rule.
> > 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 ?
There's no Constitutional reason this couldn't be done. There is, however, a law from the 1960s, as I mentioned before, which Cynthia McKinney is working to repeal.
> > (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?
No, that's not the issue at all. (see below)
> Where is the basis for the current non-PR system ?
PR hadn't been developed then. (Though Condorcet wrote about it nearly contemporaneously, it would not be implemented for another 50 years or so.) It's foundation is entire in common law and statute law. But there's now a 14th Amendment argument that would invalidate it. (below)
> In the state
> laws ? What language in the 14th Amendment are you referring to
> below ?
On June 13, 1996 the Supreme Court ruled on two cases throwing out majority black districts by a 5-4 vote. The principle was simple, through the eyes of white intentions: the state should be colorblind, racial gerrymandering is out: it discriminates against voters based on the color of their skin.
This was supposed to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But that clause isn't limited to matters of race -- it's potentially applicable to ANY arbitrary distinction. The Court -- which had NEVER found that Irish or Italian or Jewish districts were unconstituional -- has opened up the way for arguing that EVERY Democratic voter in an overwhelmingly Republican district has been deprived of due process, and visa versa. This de facto undermines the entire principle of district-based representation.
We're a long way from having this as accepted doctrine, but the logic is very straight-forward.
...<SNIP>...
> > > 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.
Oh, I don't think it's the whole ball of wax, not by along shot! But it is a great leap forward. Public financing of elections and deliberative democracy via institutions such as policy juries are both very important as well, just for starters.
> > 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 ?
Direct democracy is like my first girlfriend. I guess I'll always have a soft spot for it. But seriously, the list of reasons why it doesn't work -- and can't work -- is quite compelling. For one thing, the honest truth is that most folks don't want to think about politics all that much. This leaves the field wide open for special interests to occupy the power vacuum. (Sectarian take-overs of mass movement organizations and corporate hi-jacking of the California inititiative process are two prominent examples of how this works.)
It's far more democratic to develop structures that integrate with how people really are, not with how we think they should be, in order for their wishes to be carried out.
(No one wants to have to serve on the jury of every trial, for example. We don't think that's a lack of democracy. We do, however, feel that there are just and unjust ways of selecting juries. The same hueristic should apply viz-a-viz governance.)
This necessarily means various different kinds of delegation of responsibility, which can be MUCH more reasonable, fair, transparent and responsive than what we're accustomed to these days.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"