[EM] PR and Second Chambers

[James Gilmour]

Alex wrote:
> 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:
NB  It wasn't my question
> >> 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?
But this was my (tentative) answer.
> >
> > 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?

When I suggested the Federal Parliaments of Australia and Germany I was not
thinking about their voting systems, but more about the members representing the
electors through different "constituencies".  The Australian one is more
immediately relevant as both Houses are directly elected: the House of
Representatives by population (numbers of electors) and the Senate by State (fixed
at 12 members per State irrespective of population).  I would have no problem with
electing both such Houses by STV-PR, but I agree that is not how it is done at
present in Australia.  Because the upper and lower Houses would have different
functions and would represent the electors through qualitatively different
"constituencies", I don't think there need be any practical political problems in
the operation of a Parliament with two Houses, both elected by STV-PR.  (As to
district magnitude, you'll see from other posts that I am totally opposed to
nation-wide PR elections.)

>
> 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.
>

I would suggest PR is most needed wherever the real power lies.

>
> 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.

I do appreciate the sophistication that can go into gerrymandering.  However, the
fundamental problem remains that 50% of those who vote will get no representation
no matter whether the district is gerrymandered or not.  Correct that defect and
you can (more or less) forget about gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering causes a great
deal of concern, but focusing on it deflects attention away from the underlying
problem - the voting system is rotten and should be changed.

If you think you've got problems with what we call "safe seats", you may be
interested to know that the balance of power in the UK House of Commons (659
members) is decided by only 10,000 voters, even when 30 million vote.  The
policies of the main parties are all focussed on winning the support of those
10,000 voters.  Some democracy!

James