Comments on: Two Members Per Seat

By: Dick Olson

Dick Olson — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:45:06 +0000

A good place to try this would be at a constitutional convention. Otherwise, a flawed apportionment leads to a flawed convention. That happened in 1963, and Romney’s absurd plan for the state senate was overturned in June 1964 to great tumult because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

By: Bobbie Walton

Bobbie Walton — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:15:50 +0000

Sorry I’ve come to the party so late.

Proportional representation is certainly the best way to guarantee opportunity for minorities to coalesce and bring more power to the table. Also, instant run-off voting for multi-member districts will present better opportunities for third parties to get some representation.

I lived in Maryland for 24 years and can tell you that multi-member districts do nothing to spread the influence between the parties. Slates of incumbent members, all of the same party, are almost always re-elected.

The idea of sharing a single vote is intriguing and just might work.

I like the ideas you present and want us to seriously debate them and work for change.

By: Question

Question — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:35:47 +0000

Has anyone run the stats under the proportional system proposed by Mr Brazier? This sort of system is basically what is used, with some modifications, in non-English-speaking countries. The first-past-the-post or winner takes all system is very much an Anglo tradition. I’m guessing that a proportional system would favor the Democratic Party, though I would be curious to know if it would give them more seats in the House than they currently have. An advantage of this system would be stronger political parties; I’m not a big fan of open systems and voting for the person over the party. I want stronger whip systems.

By: Jim Brazier

Jim Brazier — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:24:16 +0000

Proportional representation could be tried yet another way. It could be done by tallying up each party’s votes and dividing by the total votes cast for legislative offices then apportioning the party share of the total to each member elected. This share the same flaw as Ruff’s proposal, the possibility of pushing up the votes for a party by any means possible. An asset of my proposal is that single member election districts could far better survive this modification without successful legal challenges.

By: Craig Ruff

Craig Ruff — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:56:15 +0000

1. Beverly: Good points, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state legislative bodies must be apportioned not on jurisdictional boundaries, such as counties, but on population. If you’re looking for fewer state legislators, you could have a one-chamber legislature (see my last essay) of 35 seats, with two members from each district. That totals 70, as opposed to 148 current state legislators.
2. Gloria: I’m with you!
3. Disappointed Reader: Alas, there is nothing about Maryland’s districting that gives a minority a sway over law making. The same district likely will send members of the same party to the state legislature. Stay tuned, because my next essay argues precisely what you envision: a parliamentary system. And, I applaud you much for getting rid of district numbers and using geographical descriptions to aid us. Bravo for that idea!
4. You’re Kidding Me. You may want to refer back to my last essay, arguing for a single legislative chamber, in part to save gridlock. But, the grounds for my proposing a single legislative chamber, with two members each, is not based on choking off the number of politicians people send to Lansing. Rather, to make your voice (majority or minority) in your district be heard in Lansing.

Thanks all for your very constructive crticism.

By: You're kidding me!!

You're kidding me!! — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0000

Just what we need more politicians in Lansing!!! And a perfect formula for total gridlock. It figures that Zolton Ferency would come up with this idea. Why do we even need both the State Senate and the House?? I haven’t noticed Michigan entering into any treaties or them confirming any judges lately. Why do we need both? Save the money!

By: Disapointed reader

Disapointed reader — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:49:45 +0000

I’m rather disappointed by Mr. Ruff’s proposal. When this proposal was teased a couple months ago, I thought he would be proposing some akin to what Maryland and other states have: multi-member legislative districts. Each member has one vote in the respective chamber they were elected to (anything less would probably be ruled unconstitutional). This could be done in Michigan by consolidating everything down to 38 legislative districts. I personally would also support a British or Canadian-style system of geographic-named constituencies. Our system of numbered districts is confusing, and few constituents know what district they live in. I do think a proportional system, as done in European countries would be very interest. Perhaps 85 of the current seats would remain constituencies with first-past-the-post systems, while the remaining 15 percent of seats would be allocated to the political parties based on the proportion of votes received; thus creating at-large members of Legislature (note that I didn’t use member of the Legislature, as it’s members of Parliament or members of Congress).

By: Gloria

Gloria — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:17:15 +0000

We have far too many districts where the election is decided in the primary. Too many legislators are from “safe” districts and perhaps this adds to the toxic levels of partisanship. I have loved this idea since I first heard Zolton Ferency explain it and we have even more reason for this change today than we did 20 years ago.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:21:08 +0000

Let’s try FEWER people in these positions. That means arguments will be fewer and the costs will be less!!! Like maybe the number of representatives (reps & senators) should equal number of counties in the state. One county equals one vote. Then maybe Lansing might get something done in a timely fashion.