poly: proportional representation

Damien mentioned several reasons why PR wouldn't be so bad in America as
it has occasionally been elsewhere, but did not mention explicitly the
one I think most persuasive: the separation of powers. In parliamentary
republics like Israel and the Former British Empire, the cabinet
(including the chief executive) is chosen from among the legislators, so
a bare majority in parliament is a much bigger prize than it is here -
where it's rare for even a hostile Senate to block more than one of a
President's cabinet nominees.

phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu wrote:
> What I envision isn't normal PR ... We'd still have districts, because I
> think Americans are used to having Their Representative, ...

Hm, well, I think most don't care one way or the other, but the minority
who are indeed so accustomed outnumber the minority who know what PR
is. (Since I moved, and dropped out of politics, I haven't bothered to
learn the name of "my Representative".)

If I could sneak into Independence Hall in 1787, I'd urge:
- a Senate like they made;
- a popular House elected at large by PR slates;
- a President elected by approval (perhaps by the Electoral College);
with the proviso that the winner, if he has 2/3 approval, gets to pick
the VP from among those with majority approval; otherwise the runner-up
is VP. And perhaps a President without 2/3 approval has a shorter term
and limited powers.
- No Federal judiciary at all. But that rant is for another day (and
another forum).

-- 
Anton Sherwood  *\\*  br0nt0@p0b0x.com  *\\*  http://ogre.nu