[EM] PR and Second Chambers

[Alex Small]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree over the merits/demerits of single
member districts.  We've pretty much laid out our respective stances. 
However, the subject of second chambers is an interesting one where there
are open questions to explore:

James Gilmour said:
>> Let me close with a question:  For those who still think single-member
>> districts have no place in a legislature, what do you propose as a
>> good model for a bicameral legislature?
>
> This is not a subject to which I have given a great deal of thought
> because it is not at the top of my (UK) political agenda.  And you may
> have noticed the mess we've got ourselves into trying to reform our
> Upper House (still unelected!!). But the Federal Parliaments of
> Australia and Germany might be good places to look for a start.


I thought that in Australia one house was elected from single-member
districts and the other by PR.  In Germany, I think one is elected via a
combo of PR and single-member districts, and the other is appointed by the
state governments.  As a practical matter, unless the second chamber is
appointed, the only options are PR or single-member districts.  Of course,
PR leaves a lot of room to wiggle:  Nationwide PR elections?  Several
large multi-member districts?

As a practical matter, if we ever get PR in the US, it will start at the
state level.  I doubt that people will accept the notion of two houses
elected by PR, much less the idea of a unicameral legislature elected by
PR.  We'll probably have one house elected by PR and the other by the
current system.  I think it's an open question as to which house would be
elected by PR, and also an open question as to which house should be
elected by PR (what would be and what should be are not always the same).

Pro's of smaller house elected by PR:

-Usually the more powerful house, so we'll get more accurate
representation of the electorate in the house with the greater power.
-Keeping the larger house elected by single member districts will retain
one _perceived_ advantage of the current system, which is having
legislators close to the people and local concerns.

Con's of smaller house elected by PR:

-the multi-member districts will be quite large in terms of geography and
population, reducing the _perceived_ connection between legislators and
local concerns.


Gerrymandering issue:  Since gerrymandering of single-member districts is
harder when the districts are either very large or very small, it's
probably better that the house elected by single member districts be the
one that's hardest to gerrymander.  Which one this is depends on the
population of the state and the number of seats in each house of the
legislature.  In New Hampshire, they have a little over a million people
and about 400 or so seats in one house of their legislature, and
twenty-some seats in the other house.  It would seem that the smaller
house would be harder to gerrymander.  Conversely, in California the house
sizes are 40 and 80 members, so both can be gerrymandered with the same
amount of ease or difficulty.

I know you don't think gerrymandering is the largest problem with
single-member districts.  However, in the US it is done with such
incredible sophistication that many legislative races go uncontested, or
they're contested by people who know they can't win but want to run just
for the fun of it (I've heard of college students with light courseloads
running for office in gerrymandered districts, just to gain experience). 
The lack of any real competition means there's very little accountability.
 A legislator just has to keep the party's base loyal so he or she doesn't
lose the primary election, since it's a given that he or she will win the
general election.



Alex Small