I understand, but see NO disagreement between the Peace and Freedom, Justice and Green Parties—except who should implement their shared platform. Again, the only difference between them and the Grassroots Party is the latter places far too much importance on legalizing marijuana, but that is a difference in priorities, not policy. None of them can accomplish anything until/unless the public takes them seriously, which requires putting aside cults of personality and being professional, not petty (we have too much of the latter in government already.)


No, PR lets party bosses dictate policy to the exclusion of the public; that is actually one of its strengths: NO risk unqualified neophytes like Sarah Palin, Allan West or Joe Walsh run the country. How much better off would we all be if Dem leaders had declared Hillary their 2008 nominee instead of an inexperienced populist who had not even finished one term in Congress?

That said PR is less, not more, democratic than regional representation, more oligarchically republican, in fact. Bosses and lackeys run government too much now; ceding them ALL control would make that worse, not better. Including career politicians from more parties would also only exacerbate rather than remedy the problem.


I claim no perfect understanding of all proportional representation details, but firmly grasp the basics. Fundamentally, it is voting for a PARTY, not PERSON (even though voters in many countries nominally do the latter.) Senior party officials decide which of them assume the offices won. That makes the bad old days of party bosses in smoky back rooms deciding the presidential nomination look positively transparent: We choose the party, but it chooses our representatives.

Would that mean more choices than letting anyone on the ballot who amasses enough signatures? It might get the leader of the Green and Libertarian parties a House seat, but both would be stuck in the same position as Bernard Sanders: Caucus/vote with one of the two major parties or not at all. The only practical effect would be making Congressional majorities more difficult and transitory; examples like Joe Lieberman and Strom Thurmond suggest that would be no benefit.

Meanwhile, reconciliing IRV (which I much prefer) and PR is self-defeating. Votes for the least preferred candidates/parties can be redistributed to each voters second choice OR offices won in proportion to the share of votes earned. Doing both is contradictory.