They'll finally be able to pass a budget?

We can only hope.

Of course many forms of preferential voting, especially PR, would make partisan redistricting less effective.

Proportional representation should indeed have an effect, if only due to there being fewer districts. I don't think straight preferential voting would necessarily have much effect. We've certainly had majority governments that lost the popular vote (even with districting under control of a non-partisan body).

I think PR is worth pushing for at the state level, but I don't know if it could make much headway federally. The problem is the state sysstem. It makes all the Presidential and Senate races winner-take-all. (We have a kind of PR for our Senate, but we have six states each of which elects 12 Senators in two tranches. You'd have 600 Senators under that arrangement.) Even for the House of Reps, it'd be impractical for small states and I don't know if it could be 'sold' on what becomes a limited scope.

I'd find it interesting if the US did go there though. Then you'd have a PR House and single-member Senate seats, while Australia would have the reverse - single-member House seats and PR Senate representation. (And given the differences between a presidential and parliamentary system, I could almost make sense of it.)

Wallabies nommed my fingers. As did kangaroos. I have photo proof.Tomorrow I fall off the Internet for a while.

Yes, I know these were borderline domestic, but I got to scritch ears, I don't care!

SO JEALOUS

In my fantasy world where we get PR In the house (House sets its own election rules so constitutionly possible through straight legislation) we also get a constitutional Amendment that "House of Lords" the Senate - leaving it in existence but transferring all powers to the PR house. (There is provision in the constitutuion that no state can be stripped of equal representation in Senate without its own consent - basically unanimous consent for changes - so leave the Senate in existence two Senators per state, but eliminate all the power of the Senate - turn it into a decorative appendage. )

Oh, god, Typo, I so do not want to live in your fantasy world. The Senate is the only thing that keeps Congress from being mass insanity. You think the House would be more sane if we had preferential voting??

You think the House would be more sane if we had preferential voting??

TB was advocating proportional representation rather than preferential voting. I actually think that could work out ok for your House. As it stands, it seems to me that the House has functioned best when each major party included a number of factions and caucuses which could negotiate beyond the party line. It made it possible to build workable coalitions for individual pieces of legislation (hopefully knocking off some of the rough edges in the process). It's become dysfunctional now IMO because the parties have become more ideologically distinct and party discipline has increased. (By which I mostly mean the Republicans, who couldn't cough up even one member that favoured compromising to stop the worst financial crisis in 80 years over scoring political points.)

Not entirely true - I also blame the Tea Party bloc, which is IMO a rabble of rank amateurs willing to plunge the world back into economic chaos because they don't understand how the political process works. Screw sending outsiders to change Washington, I'ma vote for the competent professionals.

Anyway, point is, PR would potentially lead to much the same situation as you had when party control was looser, with various factions providing checks and balances on one another. (It needs to be well designed; in some countries it's just led to chaos and revolving-door governments. But in others it's worked well, and I think the US system gives reason for optimism here.)

FWIW, I don't know whether the House (and the Presidency, and the Senate) would be more sane with preferential voting, but I do think it would better reflect the will of the people. It might just take the edge off pandering to extremists as well.

Finally, though, I agree with you. I think Senate rules are in great need of reform. (By the way, apparently Harry Reid is saying that he's not planning to remove the filibuster; instead he says the problem is the motion to proceed. Could someone more conversant with Senate rules translate for me?) But I don't have a problem with a bicameral system. Here I will note that historically, Senators have been less extreme than House Reps (needing to persuade an entire state, not just a small, unrepresentative corner), and more willing to reach a deal. Filibusters were rare and noteworthy. (Go back and watch the West Wing ep, the Stackhouse Filibuster; was that ever a different era, where it was a quixotic act of individual defiance and not a deliberate strategy to destroy the legislative process.) Again, the Repubs are to blame; but I believe reforming the Senate rules to prevent dog-in-the-manger obstructionism would be sufficient.

Ok, not quite true. I wouldn't be averse to some shift in the balance of power between the two chambers, the House is closer to providing a democratic representation of the country; but America isn't about to adopt a parliamentary system, and that's ok. There are many things that can be done to reform the political process without going that far.

Also, grilled haloumi with herbs and squeezed with lemon. My parents are still confused but neutral ( I made us eat at a Turkish joint after McDonaldsing the more pedestrian eaters in our crew.)

Thanks to Spain, I am rocking the appetizer menus and stop for wine and a bite while we're in a city.

I'm really just linking to this for the headline: "Dick Morris Falls On His Sword For Wrong Predictions, Misses Sword". [link]

Wow, it is terrible outside here. Mid-30s and raining, slush and snow on the ground still, and windy. Yuck!