U.S. Political Parties with Proportional Representation

For sake of argument, let's say that somewhere between 1910 and 1913, progressive members of Congress manage to amend the Constitution to provide for a system of mixed member proportional representation in the House (There's no specific POD here, but that doesn't really matter--my aim here is to discuss the possible development of American political parties should PR be introduced to some degree).

The amendment I'm making up off of the top of my head would be something like this--1/3 of the House would be elected by national-list proportional representation with an electoral threshold of 1%. So that's 145 members elected by means of proportional representation. Supposing we start this off in 1912, how are later national elections effected? How do American political parties grow and react in response?

Off of the top of my head, I can think of quite a few parties that are going to experience rapid growth from this kind of law. The nascent Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt got 2% of the national vote in the House IOTL, and with this kind of amendment, I would expect it to be higher. I also foresee the Socialists and the Prohibitionists, of all people, making significant gains should we start this in 1912. Of course, the Prohibitionists will likely whiter away by the time their crown jewel--the 18th Amendment--comes into force, but they'll nonetheless be a player early on.
 

kenmac

Banned
They would be definatly a three party system right away with the Republicans likely forming a coalition government with the Progressives.
By the 1930's I would think the Socialist party will be a major force too.
You could even see the Ku Klux Klan become a huge political force in the 1920's if it becomes a party.
 
Well, here's a likely scenario, if the 1912 election used the proprotional representation system you mentioned. Using the votes for Presidential candidates as a guide, the proportional vote looks something like this:

Democratic Party: 61
Progressive Party: 40
Republican Party: 34
Socialist Party: 8
Prohibition Party: 2

The total make up the House would then probably be something around this:

Democratic Party: 254 seats (-37 from OTL)
Republican Party: 123 seats (-11)
Progressive Party: 49 seats (+40)
Socialist Party: 8 seats (+8)
Prohibition Party: 2 seats (+2)
Independent: 1 seat

The most likely scenario from this, I can figure, is that AF of L abandons it's voluntarism, and likely endorses the Socialists now that the barriers to electoral participation. Such a coalition, it was estimated, could win about 30 seats in the House from single member districts, and a significant portion of the proportional seats.

So, in all likelihood, the Progressives and Socialists, along with the AFL, will form some sort of Labor Party in the near future.
 
By the present day, you could see a lot of the larger interest groups have their own parties; AARP Party and Tea Party, anyone? :D Seriously, old people are the fastest-growing constituency in the US, so such a party would have a large base.

On a more serious note, there are likely to be Socialist, Progressive, and Prohibition Parties. Some kind of Southern nationalist party is likely as well. Maybe the Grange could form some kind of Farmers' Party.
 
Oh God!
Mixed member proportional; Welcome to the United States of Italy!

MMP has been used in Germany since 1949 and for most of the period roughly 1960 - 1990 the country had an extremely stable three-party system with the Christian Democrats getting darn close to 50% of the seats all by themselves most of the time. I think it would be the best system for the US to adopt.
 

Cook

Banned
One success and multiple failures is not a great endorsement of MMP Cylon.

Since we gave you the Hidden Ballot (google the Australian Ballot System;)) I’ll smugly suggest the following improvements:
1) Preferential Voting.
2) Elections held on Saturdays instead of Tuesdays to make it more convenient for people.
3) Compulsory voting.

:)
 
One success and multiple failures is not a great endorsement of MMP Cylon.

Since we gave you the Hidden Ballot (google the Australian Ballot System;)) I’ll smugly suggest the following improvements:
1) Preferential Voting.
2) Elections held on Saturdays instead of Tuesdays to make it more convenient for people.
3) Compulsory voting.

:)

Touche, Cook :p, but I didn't know that Italy tried MMP, though I do know that Ukraine did not feel very good about it when they tried it, but that the UK uses it in regional assemblies to good effect. What other countries have tried it and found it lacking?

Actually, I do find the Australian election system to be rather rational and effective as well (I am NOT supportive of my own country's system...). I like the mix of IRV and STV for the House and Senate, though in the US I think we'd go for IRV only. I would agree to all of those improvements you mentioned and add one more:

5) Split-Line Algorithm method to delineate House Districts. My parents live in a town of 3000 in the northeastern corner of California, but their gerrymandered district goes all the way down the highway to the suburbs of Sacramento 300 miles away!
 
Last edited:
MMP has been used in Germany since 1949 and for most of the period roughly 1960 - 1990 the country had an extremely stable three-party system with the Christian Democrats getting darn close to 50% of the seats all by themselves most of the time. I think it would be the best system for the US to adopt.

Ditto for Germany.
 
For sake of argument, let's say that somewhere between 1910 and 1913, progressive members of Congress manage to amend the Constitution to provide for a system of mixed member proportional representation in the House...


NF,

They'll have to amend more than that if it is going to work as it does in other nations. Those proportional representatives need to be able to regularly vote for some very important if they and their various ideologies are going to be taken seriously by the major parties. Voting for the occasional highway bill or tariff adjustment isn't going to cut it. The proportional representatives need to have a say in who runs the government and that's why proportional representation works in other nations.

In the US system the only time the House had a say in who runs to government is when the Electoral College fails to elect a president and that has only happened once.

Le me use Germany as an example of where proportional representation works. In that nation, unlike the US Presidency, the role of chief executive and head of state are separated into two offices. Like the US Presidency, those two roles are also not elected directly by the citizenry but, unlike the US Presidency, the German chief executive, the Chancellor, is elected by the legislature. This is when all those minor parties get to put themselves about, their votes are needed to achieve the majorities needed to elect the nation's chief executive officer. Their votes aren't needed in that role in the US however.

So, if you want proportional representation to actually work instead of just seating various kooks, cranks, and flakes, you've got to do some rather radical surgery on the Constitution and the organization of the Federal government.

Another reason why this won't work is that you'll be taking away representatives from the states in order to create this useless proportional representation block and, seeing as the state need to ratify any amendments to the Constitution, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Off of the top of my head, I can think of quite a few parties that are going to experience rapid growth from this kind of law.

And each with be marginalized even more than there are in the OTL. Enough people nationwide vote for the Fuzzy Orange Toupee Party so that a FOT representative is seated? Who cares? As I explained above because the US is not a parliamentary federal republic and because the chief executive officer of the US is only elected by the House when the Electoral College really screws up, no one running for President needs the vote of the Fuzzy Orange Toupee Party representative. He might get a bone or two thrown his way for votes on certain bills, just like the reps from the various rotten boroughs, but he'll have less power than a representative belonging to the political parties who can actually nominate Presidents that get elected.

The US already has plenty of "rotten boroughs" thanks to long term political gerrymandering and the more recent court-mandated racial districts. The representatives in each are nothing more than hacks who face no real opposition and whose votes are taken for granted. Proportional representation simply adds to the number of unregarded hacks, nothing more.

Now, if the amendments turned the Presidency into a office which is elected by Congress, than proportional representation might work. However, as I explained at the beginning of this post, that will require many more amendments than you're suggesting.


Bill
 
Top