I do recognize how it might be argued that a state could not limit the terms of the Representatives because the Representatives do not represent the whole state. Imagine Utah passing such a restriction because the majority of the state does not like having a Democrat representing the second district – there they could be overriding the desires of a majority of the residents of the second district who keep sending Jim Matheson back to Washington every two years. If there were no incumbent Democrat running for the seat the Republicans would have a better chance of taking that seat.

Ron,

I’m glad to hear that the discussions are valuable to more people than just me.

Ronald has some decent ideas about loosening the grip of the two-party duopoly. I’m not too thrilled about some, but I could fully support others. Most of these kinds of things need to bubble up from the local level to the state level, and then from the state level to the national level.

I was disappointed that the Supreme Court ruled that states could not limit the terms of their U.S. senators and congressional representatives, because I think that experimentation with this kind of thing at the state level is a model of achieving respectably acceptable political change. I do, however, appreciate the court’s interpretation of the matter, so I cannot say that the court erred.

“Repealing laws intended to discourage voting” sounds good on the surface but it’s to generic, I’d carefully consider each law they propose repealing to decide if I support each case. the overall goal of weakening the stranglehold of the two-party system is something I generally agree with. I think that we should be careful how restrictive we are about getting on the ballot. I have seen the pros and cons of IRV and I think it’s worth trying where people are willing. It’s certainly worth considering and educating people about the option. I am in favor of doing away with loyalty oaths – if a person wants to run and can get on the ballot then they should be allowed to do so. I understand why the parties do not like it, but I don’t think that we do ourselves any favors in the long run by simplifying the democratic process to the point that voters don’t feel the need to do their homework.

Election reform has actually always been a big progressive cause so I am unsure of how some of the idea’s would be taken here. But for the purpose of putting them on the table I will cut and past a resent part of a post on the openleft.com blog.

“Changing the election laws is a major goal. Repealing laws intended to discourage voting is a starting point, and this is something that third parties, dissident Democrats, and even many mainstream Democrats can cooperate on. Next are various reforms intended to weaken the stranglehold of the two-party leadership: laws making it easier to qualify for the ballot and run as an independent, laws making fusion, instant runoff, and open primaries possible, and the abolition of “loyalty oaths” forbidding candidates defeated in the primaries from running as independents or for other parties. All of these later proposals should get support from everybody but mainstream Democrat, and they’re a good place to start for that reason.”

You are absolutely right that a National Proportional Voting System would completely change our structure and would encourage the development and inclusion of more than two parties – it would turn the House of Representatives into something akin to Israel’s Knesset. Now think about what you are suggesting – who would be your representative? No longer would you have a member of congress who was accountable to you – each member of Congress would be accountable to their party only. The people would only have direct claim on their local party, not on any member of the House.

I’m not saying that it can’t be done. Israel and others have been using this kind of system for decades but please do not pursue it without acknowledging what a fundamental change it would be to our system. It would mean that the very concept of geographical districts, the very thought of constituencies based on location rather than ideology, would be nothing more than a dream. You could be assured of a higher degree of ideological purity within any given party, but you would also minimize the necessity of working with others with whom you did not already basically agree. (And you know it could only come about through an amendment.)