In his book *Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop*, Lee Drutman argues that the solution to America’s extreme polarization and division is to adopt a proportional representation system. He also said that it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment.

20 comments

  1. Elections are currently too decentralized for this to be implemented on a federal level. It would have to be done by the states. As for whether it would fix anything, maybe, maybe not. Coalition governments in some ways function like two-party systems.

  2. If he’s arguing for a parliament then no I don’t think that would solve anything and might introduce more political chaos.

    Also I’d be curious to see how he thinks we could do it without a constitutional amendment. I guess each state could chose to elect their representatives that way but good luck getting 50 different states to completely upend their politics process for a different one.

    Drutman seems like a smart guy but he’s also a PhD from Berkeley that doesn’t have any real political experience so just having an interesting idea about how to run things doesn’t necessarily mean he knows fuck all about day to day politics even if he has some nice ideas in theory.

  3. >division is to adopt a proportional representation system.

    There is a reason why the Founders ensured that the evils of democracy were not allowed to exist in the US

    >He also said that it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment.

    It would since the constitution says all state government must be republican form of governments not democracies

  4. No.

    It would require constitutional amendments as the US, and I would venture to say most if not all state constitutions define the existing structure.

  5. Yeah, this is definitely going to need a change to multiple constitutions, state and the big US, and in this current political climate, I don’t trust that it would go down well

  7. It would be interesting to use the bicameral nature of our legislature to partly adopt one, probably replacing the House.

  8. >He also said that it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment.

    Makes it tough to believe anything else he says in that case.

  9. There is no perfect system of government. The way ours is set up now is fine and any changes that are made to it would only trade one flaw for another. We have a system that allows for checks and balances and the people ultimately get to decide which direction we want to go.

    What we need is to stop letting the politicians get away from working within the restrictions that are supposed to be enforced. One example that comes to mind is the filibuster. How the filibuster is used has changed dramatically and all just to make the job easier for congress.

    The system is fine as long as we hold the people accountable and make sure the rules are followed.

  10. >Should America adopt a proportional representation system or not?

    No. Our system was designed this way for a reason, and it works. We were *never* meant to be a strict democracy. We were going to have different kinds of representatives appointed in various ways. That’s been watered down a lot, but that’s no reason to tear it down entirely.

    >He also said that it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment.

    I can see certain changes being made without it, but you wouldn’t get very far without amending the constitution.

    >the solution to America’s extreme polarization and division is to adopt a proportional representation system

    Why do people who want single-party rule always claim their schemes will “fix” our democracy?

  11. That’s like suggesting the European Union should become a single Country and do away with Member States. After all, the US is a Federal Republic of member states. It’s supposed to be weak with the concentration of power being closer to home.

    In most cases, such a change would require either a re-write of the constitution, a constitutional amendment, or require each state to change their state’s constitution to adopt ranked choice voting, split electoral votes similar to Nebraska and Maine, or some other option.

    However, eliminating things like Primary voting (why election primaries are bad is too long to explain), repealing McCain–Feingold (again explaining why this bad legislation would take too long), and/or repealing the 17th might help to improve candidates and representation, though.

    ​

    I might have to read that book to better understand Drutman’s proposal. But any such change will require a change to the constitution either Federally or each of the States own. If you think trying to get congress to agree is hard, try getting 50 states to change their own constitution.

  12. Sounds like someone writing a book by pandering to what people want to hear, rather than bothering to be correct.

  13. Two votes in the Senate was a fundamental part of the bargain to get the small states to join the large states forming the Union.

    To say, in any way, that it wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment to change is an abject lie from someone who obviously knows it is a lie and thinks you are too stupid to know that it is one.

  14. No. Proportional representation sounds good until you realize you can not vote for individuals, only for parties. All it would do is make politicians less accountable, and strengthen political parties.

  15. There’s still polarization in proportional representation systems. There’s also fundamentally not a huge amount of difference in the systems in effect. The US has two main parties, a broad mostly center left coalition party, and a broad mostly center right coalition party. Under a proportional representation system there is almost always a center left dominated coalition in charge or a center right dominated coalition in charge. The main functional difference is that under our system voters get to sign of on coalition building since it happens before the election. What proportional representation does require that our system doesn’t is a codification of political parties and the removal of the ability to vote for individual candidates rather than political parties.

    In short, it doesn’t really fix anything and it’s worse.

  17. Can this system be described to better understand what is being talked about?

    Is this a system in which your state has ten house seats so people vote for a party and then based on the outcome, a number of reps are allocated from each party?

    If so that would mean people are voting for parties instead of individuals. I’m not sure how that solves anything. That seems like it causes more polarization. People may not like a lot of s parties stances but they might like certain candidates who hold more moderate views who they might vote for.

  19. Yes, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t require an amendment. How do you essentially get rid of congress and install a parliament without an amendment?

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like