Cleese on PR (full length)

John Cleese in 1987 video talks about proportional representation using examples from British elections - focus on what Americans call Choice Voting (choicevoting.com)

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[elco9791]

13 people can't count to 5

[FrankWernPennant]

Another aspect of PR he didn't mention is the fact that PR makes it easier for a new party to break into the system. This will prevent the ossification of the system you now see in the US. With more parties getting a realistic look-in, voters will find it easier to transfer their vote to a different party than last time. Thus the political system becomes more fluid and more reprentative of the ebb and flow of the public's views.

[mkeenan204]

From what I've heard, the VRA makes it difficult to implement PR at the US federal level, thanks to unintended consequences. They banned at-large elections, to stop the use of "bloc voting" which was often used in the South and tends to lead to landslides - but it makes PR impossible too.

[dcc1980]

With a P.R. system you always get a minority government. Governments will have legislation constantly blocked or ammended by a party that represent a smaller amount of the population. I think the Britain voting system would of been better sutied with compulsory preferential voting in the house of reps- instead of first past the post voting. But proportional representational voting makes it very diffcult for a party to have a mandate and takes away robust government.

[Christopher Burge]

There are literally hundreds of types of PR system. The system Cleese is advocating here wouldn't channel power through Chicago, because it's small regional seats of around 5 members. So clusters of 5 existing districts would be replaced by one larger district electing 5 members.

If you're thinking of the purest party centered forms of PR, like the Israeli system, you may have a point, but the Israeli system has different strong parties regionally, and 12 different parties won seats last month.

[Christopher Burge]

The best shot to get widespread PR is to have voting rights lawyers start advocating it in VRA violation cases. I know in Texas, judges mandated cumulative or limited voting in some school board elections in the 1990s, and in 1995 George W. Bush (of all people), signed a law allowing school boards to use it statewide. I don't know how many have done so voluntarily, and the law may have been repealed by the GOP at some point since then.

[Christopher Burge]

Since Israel and the Netherlands are frequently used as examples of dysfunctional systems by the media, that may not be a good idea. Also, most states have strict limits on what election systems municipalities can use, and PR may not be allowed. The only state where STV is definitely legal statewide is MN. In CA, Davis was prohibited from adopting it. In MA, I believe only Cambridge is grandfathered in. It would be difficult to adopt list PR in places where municipal elections are non-partisan.

[Christopher Burge]

The only place in the US where "ranked choice voting" is used to refer to the STV system is Minneapolis. 3 of the 9 park board members and 2 of the 6 taxation board members are elected citywide by STv, called "multi-member ranked choice." All other city elections, including all city council seats, are by single-winner ranked choice (Alternative Vote).

The only other place in the US where they use STV is Cambridge, MA, but there they just call it "proportional representation."

[Christopher Burge]

Cleese is describing the Single Transferable Vote (used in the Australian Senate, the Irish Dail, and in Malta), which is for multiple candidate elections. The mechanics are the same as IRV, but you don't need a majority, but rather 1/(n+1) of the vote, where n is the number of seats. So if there are three seats, you need 25% to get elected, and once elected, those votes you have over 25% are transferred to remaining candidates, so everyone's vote has the same value the whole way through.

[Christopher Burge]

In the USA, "ranked choice voting" usually refers to what is called the "Alternative Vote" in the rest of the world. It's more commonly called "Instant Runoff Voting" here. It's the system used in Australia and Irish presidential elections--you rank the candidates, and the lowest candidates are eliminated and their votes transferred until one candidate has a majority. It means a candidate cannot win a seat with just 49% of the vote, as is common in the US, but it is NOT a form of PR.

[porkupine73]

In the U.S. some places are trying to do this. It's been called "Ranked-choice Voting" here.