[Marxism] Michael Moore asked me: Wassup? -- revised

[Ken Ranney]

How about proportional representation for women? Women would then 
have  representation roughly equal to men, perhaps slightly more.
Ken Ranney

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 Kingdom’s House of Lords, from which our system is derived, has 
>been stripped of almost all tasks except allowing the passage of time for 
>reconsideration.
>
>(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 doesn’t 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. It’s 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 state’s representatives would be the top 4 on each of 
>the major party’s lists, while the Greens and Libertarians would each get 
>1 representative—the 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 
>democratic ideal.
>
>(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 
>democratic republic.
>
>Brian Shannon
>_______________________________________________
>Marxism mailing list
>Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism