[Marxism] Michael Moore asked me: Wassup? -- revised
kranney at rogers.com
Sun Apr 17 21:44:09 MDT 2005
How about proportional representation for women? Women would then
have representation roughly equal to men, perhaps slightly more.
At 11:40 PM 16/04/2005, you wrote:
>Here's my answer:
>A program for a democratic republic
>Electoral reform is needed to correct compromises made over 200 years ago.
>The issues or problems that they were designed to solve no longer exist.
>(1) Abolish the Senate. Now the 22 smallest states get 44 Senators.
>California, the largest state with a population equal to the smallest
>states, gets 2 Senators. There is no way to sensibly restructure this. The
>United Kingdoms House of Lords, from which our system is derived, has
>been stripped of almost all tasks except allowing the passage of time for
>(2) Abolish the Electoral College. Recent elections have made a mockery of
>the one-person one-vote standard applied throughout the nation except for
>the presidential election. It does not solve problems that the founders
>foresaw. It has resulted in the Red States, Blue States degeneration of
>our national discourse. The United States is made up of citizens--human
>beings--not pieces of land. Abolishing the Electoral College would bring
>vitality back to the electoral process. Candidates would have to campaign
>for all of our citizens votes. No one with interest in our civic life
>would feel comfortable staying at home. Previously ignored citizens would
>have the election brought to them. Their votes would count in New York and
>in Kansas! Political parties would have to come up with solutions to a
>different set or combination of issues than they now argue over.
>(3) Establish Runoff Voting. If the election doesnt produce a majority
>for a single candidate, there would be another election (two weeks later?)
>between the two top vote getters. This way we could vote for minority
>parties, which actually have something to say, which would have a chance
>to grow, without fearing that a vote would be wasted. Another alternative
>would be Instant Runoff Voting, where the secondary choices would
>determine the outcome if no candidate had an absolute majority.
>(4) Institute proportional voting. Its the only fair way to reflect the
>actual will or desire of the citizenry. Proportional voting would
>apportion congressional representation based on support for the political
>programs of the parties.
>If we accept the idea that the state boundaries stay the same as present,
>all the candidates within each state would run on a statewide slate with
>each party presenting a slate in order of preference chosen by the
>respective party. Thus, in a state with 10 representatives, if the
>Republicans and Democrats each got 40% and the Greens and Libertarians
>each got 10%, that states representatives would be the top 4 on each of
>the major partys lists, while the Greens and Libertarians would each get
>1 representativethe first person listed on each of their lists.
>It wouldn't be entirely fair, since some states have only one
>representative, others just a few. But it would be a workable compromise.
>Since this proposal is based on also getting rid of the Senate, adding
>those 100 seats to the House of Representatives would further promote the
>(5) Since neither of the major parties desire these reforms, we should
>bring these proposed reforms to them. Speak the Democratic Truth to Power!
>Ask minority parties to adopt them as part of their own political program.
>At heart, these reforms are the same kind of issues as winning the right
>to vote for women and African-Americans.
>Thank you Michael for this opportunity to participate in creating a truly
>Marxism mailing list
>Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
More information about the Marxism