Would using proportional representation in congressional elections reduce the role of money?

Question

Proportional representation results in congressional delegations that more closely represent the political leanings of the voters. It would reduce the importance of the two major parties and give smaller parties the ability to successfully field candidates. Ending winner-take-all elections would ensure that more of the population would have the representation they desire instead of a compromise.

Answer 1

Ask the Italians about that one.

Answer 2

It’s amazing how so few people understand what proportional representation actually is. When the questioner suggests that PR be used in congressional elections the obvious implication is that single member electorates would be abolished and the state or country would become one zone. You just can’t use PR in a single member electorate!!
Minority candidates will win seats in the House of Reps, but only in proportion to their popularity. The big parties, the Republicans and Democrats will still together have the majority. Congress is supposed to represent ALL citizens, not just those in the mainstream.
Getting to the actual question, I think it would increase the role of money because under the present system, some candidates in elections aren’t even contested because their ‘safe’ seat is about 70% Democrat or Republican and the 30% minority sees no need to spend money on a useless cause. Therefore the incumbent himself/herself has no need to spend money on no opposition.
That being said, it is still a small price to pay for 95% representation instead of 51%.

Answer 3

A silly idea that will only result in a minority party candidate winning. Split three ways, a politician can win with nearly two thirds voting against him.

The whole point of the current system is to prevent that. It would allow a candidate to cater to the single largest minority instead of a true majority. How does that help? If have political leanings that prevent you from appealing to a majority of the voters you must reassess your views. If you think they are correct you need to persuade more people to accept them, too. Otherwise you don't deserve to dictate to others by being unfairly overrepresented in an election.


.

Answer 4

At the beginning, money could still play an important role. However, in the long run, it will eventually decrease and that way candidates don't have to waste so much money on campaigning. Proportional voting systems come in all varieties. I'm guessing your suggestion is if we use a) the Single Transferable Vote (used in Ireland) or b) open party-lists (used in Finalnd). I'm all for a proportional voting system, maybe not a national system like in Israel or Holland, but with multi-member districts in each state. I'd like to either use the Single Transferable Vote or the Italian Senate's past system (mixed system with 1 vote; SMD tier elects candidate with Plurality system, regional tier elects candidates by party in each region by pooling all unused SMD votes without a threshold) although I'd add the requirement of electing district members by Instant Runoff Voting and transfer all 1st choices unused in SMDs as well as votes going to district winners by transferring its 1st choices according to each voter's 2nd choice and adding these votes up with the unused 1st choice votes. I'd also like to add that we should increase our U.S. House by having more members. This could be done by dividing the national population in each census by the smallest state (in this case, Wyoming) and others have already proposed this and called this the Wyoming Rule. In order to have some type of proportional voting system to work, each state should have at least 2 seats because otherwise larger states will complain and the only way everyone can be happy is if we have more Representatives. Sorry for the long comment but I'm glad that people like you are worrying about electoral reform (I'm in this too) and I totally agree that we need to open up to other parties like the Green, Libertarian or Constitution parties to better represent our voters better. Keep it up and thanks!

Answer 5

While getting rid of the winner-take-all system would eventually lead to a more accurate representation of the political leanings of the populace, I do not believe it would reduce the role of money.

Candidates would still try to promote themselves (their party/platform) in order to get more votes and have a stronger mandate than their opponents; so, they would still spend money on advertising.

Many voters would still respond to the candidates who they recognized from the political advertisements; so, the politicians with the most money would likely get more votes based on name recognition.

Answer 6

Sounds like you do not need your question answered, but only seek approval.

Proportional representation defeats the purpose of political unity. The parties are strong because they have to unify and compromise to strive. Winner take all works because it compells unity.