Response #1: Electoral System for the U.S.A.

All of the readings for this week provide detailed descriptions of various forms of electoral systems that exist and what kind of system best accommodates a given type of polity. One topic of discussion that I wish to present, one that should be of much interest to most of us and of some value for our study of electoral systems is the ideal electoral system for the U.S.A. Given the scope of this blog, I would like to limit the discussion to our method of electing congressmen.

In determining what kind of electoral system best suits the U.S.A., we should begin with an examination of what we value. Arend Lijphart notes that there is no dispute between PR and pluarlity advocates on the question of "the respective effects of the two electoral methods," but they do disagree on "the weight attached to these effects" (259). Our congressmen are elected using the pluarlity system. The effect is well-known: two parties dominate our government. The advocates for this system claim that "only in two-party systems can clear accountability for government policy be achieved" (259). The results of the 2006 U.S. Congressional elections can be seen to show that disenchanted citizens can punish a political party that demonstrates poor performance. If that claim is true, then we should ask ourselves whether we value greater proportional (minority) representation or our ability to hold our government accountable.

The U.S.A. is indeed a pluralistic society. People from all sorts of background with diverse interests coexist in this nation. It seems somewhat backward, then, that our government reflects only the interests of a simple majority of people, assuming that the malpractice of gerrymandering is perfectly balanced between the Democrats and Republicans. Women make up the biggest minority group, in terms of political representation, in the U.S.A. The table on page 261 shows that women's representation is significantly lower in plurality systems than in PR systems. Perhaps that can explain why NOW (National Organization of Women) and their cause for the constitutional ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) have not been as successful as one would expect in such a stable democracy as the U.S..

Moreover, Lijphart shows that PR systems in general do not underperform their Pluarlity counterparts. The figures in Table 2, page 262 present favorable data for PR systems in both Economic Growth and Unemployment rates.

While these figures do favor the PR system, advocates of Plurality systems still have a claim on government accountability. The example of U.S. Congress 2006 elections seems to support this claim. But the figures in Table 1 for "Voting Turnout" seem to cast doubt on the validity of the claim. While the specific example may be effective for advocates of Pluarlity systems, a voting turnout of 54.2% hardly demonstrates active voter participation to hold the government accountable. The 84.5% voting turnout of PR systems suggests that voters are more willing to express their dissatisfaction/satisfaction toward the government when they feel that their votes actually count, made possible through the PR system. I conclude that the PR system is most appropriate for electing U.S. Congressmen.