Illinois’ 110-year history with a form of proportional representation resulted in more voter choice, more bipartisanship, less bitter polarization and better representation
While I'm all for proportional representation I am not a fan of cumulative voting which can be manipulated by a disproportionate but well organized minority The Libertarian Party used it for exactly one election for the at-large members of the national executive committee and were so discouraged by the outcome that it was repealed at the very next national convention.
Unfortunately the number of seats per district currently defined in the Fair Representation Act are too small to give third party and independent candidates a real chance of winning a seat. The threshold, even in a 5 seat district, is still too high and districts with as little as 3 seats are considered acceptable. I would like to see at least 7 seat districts at a minimum.
Forgot to mention that for states with very few seats in total it will be impossible to get a 7 member district even is the whole state is a single district. Unfortunately that means a real working proportional system would also require increasing the number of seats in the House which is a very hard sell even though it is also much needed.
Regarding the Cutback Amendment - though the sell to the majority of voters was indeed "screw them for giving themselves a raise," the fact that it did away with cumulative voting was very much noticed, intentional, and part of the messaging. I was disheartened when I learned that the League of Women Voters of Illinois supported the amendment specifically because they supported getting rid of cumulative voting. At the same time there were plenty of voices who emphasized the detriment the amendment would have for representation - predictions that came true after the amendment passed.
Great stuff. Thanks!
While I'm all for proportional representation I am not a fan of cumulative voting which can be manipulated by a disproportionate but well organized minority The Libertarian Party used it for exactly one election for the at-large members of the national executive committee and were so discouraged by the outcome that it was repealed at the very next national convention.
Unfortunately the number of seats per district currently defined in the Fair Representation Act are too small to give third party and independent candidates a real chance of winning a seat. The threshold, even in a 5 seat district, is still too high and districts with as little as 3 seats are considered acceptable. I would like to see at least 7 seat districts at a minimum.
Forgot to mention that for states with very few seats in total it will be impossible to get a 7 member district even is the whole state is a single district. Unfortunately that means a real working proportional system would also require increasing the number of seats in the House which is a very hard sell even though it is also much needed.
Regarding the Cutback Amendment - though the sell to the majority of voters was indeed "screw them for giving themselves a raise," the fact that it did away with cumulative voting was very much noticed, intentional, and part of the messaging. I was disheartened when I learned that the League of Women Voters of Illinois supported the amendment specifically because they supported getting rid of cumulative voting. At the same time there were plenty of voices who emphasized the detriment the amendment would have for representation - predictions that came true after the amendment passed.