Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
With a proportional representation system the parties hold all of the power and the only thing that matters is the negotiations that happen behind closed doors to form a coalition.
If the party you voted for isn’t part of the ruling coalition then your vote didn’t matter. Sure you got someone sitting in a seat in a legislature that shares your opinions on things but the agenda is already been determined by those who negotiated the coalition.
And while you may thinking that it’s possible that a party that shares your views might get into the ruling coalition, but it’s just as likely that a small far right party could get into a coalition, which is exactly what happened in Israel’s proportional representation system.
Or as we saw in the EU’s proportional representation system, a fringe separatist party can gain notoriety and expand their influence on the population and you end up with a Brexit.
“First past the post” or as I like to call it, a community representation system, has individual representatives control the seat. That individual representative can leave the party and will still hold the seat. Which means the party has to keep the representatives of the communities happy. And those representatives have to keep their communities happy. If a minority group in a community is willing to organize they can influence the representative, and that representative can influence the party. The power dynamics flow from the people upwards.
Proportional representation systems only look good from the perspective of a spreadsheet. From the perspective of power dynamics (which is all important in politics) they’re terrible systems. You get to vote for a party that completely conforms to a checklist, but that party may have zero impact on real policy. Sure you have to make an effort to influence your representative in a community representation system, but shouldn’t the people willing to make the most effort have the most influence?
What system do you think is better, then? Because, reading that post, the main takeaway I got was basically “the people that lost a vote don’t have much say in government,” which… That’s how democracy works? I’m confused.
A community representation system is better. Or as a lot of people like to call it, a “first past the post” system.
Sometimes things are named by those who oppose it. For example the Big Bang Theory was called that by people that thought it was preposterous. But it turned out to be the best theory.
“First past the post” was deliberately called that by people pushing a proportional representation system in an effort to make it sound arbitrary and unfair.
But when power dynamics are considered, proportional representation systems are far more arbitrary and unfair. It looks better on a spreadsheet to see the number of seats being proportional to the number of votes. But when you consider the seats are controlled by the parties and not the individuals sitting in them, there’s really no point to having seats at all, other than for optics. An optimal proportional representation system would simply have the each party appoint one representative and that representative would have exactly the number of votes the party got in the last election. The only reason there are legislatures and seats in a proportional representation system is to give people the illusion that there’s a legislative assembly.
A bicameral system with House that is community representation body and a Senate that’s a proportional representation system might be fine. But having seats in a pop rep is really silly, just have each party appoint someone to put on record why they’re voting for or against a bill. And bicameral systems can lead to gridlock, so I’d say that at most a prop rep system should only be able to delay legislation, not block it completely. This would encourage listening to the concerns of minority parties to get legislation passed sooner, but prevents some far right whackadoos from blocking everything because they want the government to fail.
In a multi-party system, that’s fine. Parties accrue delegates by appealing to a voting base. And candidates get onto the slate by working in and for the parties to bring in new supporters and achieve policy changes.
That depends on the parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions. But - generally speaking - if you’ve got a delegate you support in the parliament you’re much better off than if you’re casting a protest vote for an individual or group who will never hold a seat. Even if its a lone Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders esque voice, that’s a foundation around which to build a movement. By contrast, a Ralph Nader outsider who gets seen as a spoiler candidate every four years is going to build more hostility to your movement the more successful it gets.
Love my Jim Justice style politician
Why would I want a candidate that can win under a party banner that I support and then turn coat the moment they’re ensconced in a four or six year term of office?
Not if they’re doing the one-term Senate gambit, like Kristen Sinema. Six years cultivating favors with corporate interests, and then resign before you party can primary you out so you can take a job as a lobbyist.
Coalition governments build support by appealing to particular interests of the various party members. That means an “Abolish the National Debt” Party and a “Green New Deal Party” are going to form a different kind of government than a “Green New Deal” and a “Small Business Alliance” party. But if you’re interested in debt-politics and I’m interested in clean energy and third guy is interested in business start-up subsidies, we’re all better off supporting for our issue-centric partisan groups than aligning behind a “Generic Liberal” or “Generic Conservative”.
And you’re better off still if you contact your representative about issues that matter to you in a community representation system.
Also people like Bernie Sanders or AOC simply wouldn’t have any prominence in prop rep system. Bernie is an independent that’s popular in his state. AOC is in congress because she won a primary in a safe blue district. They aren’t required to vote on party lines, so the Democratic party has to compromise with them. In a prop rep system they’d either have to fall in line with the party leadership or form their own party and be irrelevant.
Third Parties are only relevant because of their potential to spoil an election. In a multiparty system they no longer have that capability. The only power they could potentially have is in the backroom deals to form a coalition with a larger party if the larger party doesn’t have the majority of the votes. And once again, this kind of thing swings both ways. A center right party may need to form a coalition with far right extremists in order to take power, as we’ve seen happen in Israel.
Next election, Kristen Sinema will be gone. This is an indication of the system working, but you’re characterizing it as a sign of the system being broken. No matter which system you have, it’s not feasible to have elections every week. There will always be bad actors that will require an election to remove from power.
Exactly the problem. I don’t have a say in the nature of the coalition that’s formed after the election. I’m not going to 100% agree with any party, and in a Prop Rep system the policies will be determined after the election during backroom deals to form a coalition. I’m in Canada and the Green Party basically imploded over Israel-Palestine even though there’s no chance for them to ever have any influence over foreign policy. Many times I might agree with a party in theory, but politicians tend to be whacky people and party leadership tends to be even whackier. But since the 2 MPs they have represent their communities they can do that job even when the party leadership goes batshit crazy. People can still call their Green Party MPs and those MPs can bring up those concerns in the Parliament even when the party itself is completely broken.
The only reason why Justin Trudeau is PM is because his party has built a lot of capability in identifying community leaders and recruiting those people into the party. People may not even like the party but they like the person they have running in their area, so a few seats can be picked up in this way. It’s interesting how bringing in community leaders is a good strategy to win an election in the “bad” First Past the Post system isn’t it? In a prop rep system you’d want to fill your party with yes men who would go along with whatever the party leadership wants.
Also compare what happens if the party leadership goes nuts in both of these systems. In the first past the post system, if a majority of members (who are beholden to their communities) thinks the leadership is bad, then the leadership is gone. In a prop rep system is there’s any members that don’t like the leadership those members get replaced, because the seats belong to the party, not the people that sit in them.
See politics isn’t just a numbers game. There’s debate and discussion and compromise. Power dynamics should be the primary consideration in any system. Prop Rep is a party first system, the power flows down from the party leadership. In a community representation system the power flows up from the communities. Voters decide who represents the community, community leaders decide who the party leader is. No system is without flaws, but a prop rep is completely dependent on parties which creates too many disconnects between the voters and those in power.