Krist Novoselic to Appear on Rachel Maddow Show to Talk About Proportional Representation

Krist Novoselic, chair of FairVote, will be on the Rachel Maddow show Thursday evening, July 5, to talk about Proportional Representation and other election reforms that are widely used throughout the world but which are still little-known in the United States. The show airs at 9:30 p.m. east coast time. Thanks to Rob Richie for this news.


  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes required for each legislator.

    Both majority rule and minority representation.

    WIL K.N. screw up P.R. 0000001 on the show ???

  2. Larry Allred · · Reply

    Mr Novoselic got about seven minutes on Thom Hartmann’s the Big Picture a short time back and got the standard Fairvote pitch out there. PR got most of the time, the 25% threshold variety like the cumulative system IL had for so long. There was a little less time for IRV and NPV, Right to Vote. Nothing was presented as panacea vehecle for voters of moderate inclination except he stressed that in America elections are candidate-based as to party-based elsewhere. Hmmm. He’d like to see a multi-member district turn out a Dem, a Rep, and a Independent (maybe) Having each achieved a quarter of the vote. Full representation there he’ll tell you.

    To be fair, Novoselic is pushing stuff that does not need a constitutional amendment. He’s moderately radical. And that’s okay.

    On Rachels’s show I hope he gets more time I wonder if she will lean towards showcasing him as radical or moderate. Rachel’s great but time and again but she is an apologist for the two party system. After the ’08 election she was oh so worried about the continued existence of the Republican party. Extreme silly.

    If the viewer in the end gets the impression we (America)can indulge in a little PR around the edges and keep the two party system too, I’ll be a little disappointed.

    If the resilientcy of the two-party never comes up specifically, the message can be said to be of far less importance than the medium and the messegers.

  3. Sounds like the way for a three party system! Alright!

  4. Larry Allred · · Reply

    Well, Rachel Maddow gave Krist Novoselic an open shot and the major parties and. . .he demured. Novoselic again wanted to say that America has a candidate-based system unlike some european list proportional system, as if the two orientations are absolutely exclusive of each other when there are more wonderful electoral models than days in the year.

    When talking about his native WA state, he’s appopriately critical of the redistricting effort there as the results of that will be rather determinant of who does and does not get elected there without reference to the kick in the teeth other parties got with the top-two arrangement that needs every big-swinging critic it can get. The uniformity, field sizes and relative predicabilty of top-two campaigns goes unnoticed though its impact on who gets elected (who runs), like redistricting is impactful.

    This genre of electoral reform is grange. Grunge way way better.

  5. Demo Rep · · Reply

    probable RM mini-report later,

  6. Larry Allred · · Reply

    Watched the repeat Maddow show just to listen again to Novoselic. Not that he said anything different but I concentrated on different parts and re-reflected.

    If Novoselic comes out against the two parties, the system, he might not be able to access MSM much. He embraced the Mann-Ornstien book which is MSNBC’s accepted detailed take on major parties today.

    Fairvote (Novoselic) may well view going mainstream as a hard won promotion. There are a couple of million people/voters out there that electoral system change and consideration of the same means setting fire to the constitution. Novoselic no doubt was to help in that area.

    BUT, political parties are inevitable, best to have well and clearly regulated multipartisan polity in this regard. It doesn’t mean necesarily that candidacies are subordinated to nefarious faction behaving parties, Krist. America’s electoral tradition has never gotten popular examination. Political bosses have reversed every worthy gain in this area throughout history. Every electoral concept with a flag wrapped arpound it is a lie. Better to get a citizens commission like in BC to get together and think outside the old box, Krist.

  7. Demo Rep · · Reply

    # 6 P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

    NO need for a BC commission of amateurs controlled by the *experts*.

    There is a Stone Age MAJOR fixation with AREA stuff for legislative body elections.

    As if the robot party hack elected in ANY gerrymander district gives a damn about ANY of the voters in such district.

    The party hacks care only about the party hack control freak agenda — i.e. a nonstop conspiracy of gangs since 1776.

    i.e. the EVIL of the party hacks in the State legislatures in 1776-1787 caused the top secret 1787 Fed Convention to happen — producing the 3 more EVIL gerrymander systems – H.Reps, Senate, Electoral College.

  8. Larry Allred · · Reply

    #7 Only people from other planets are nonpartisan. Everyone on this rock is either a committed non-participant or to a varing degree a partisan. I used to like thinking there was such a thing because we all want that from time to time from people in particular circumstances, but it’s fantasy.

    As for the citzens’ commission I say that to 1) put in a good word for sortition. Participation needs to be spurred. If you were randomly chosen to be on a board I doubt you’d be controled by the experts, and you’re not altogether that unique in that regard 2) remedies to dreadful present electoral status quo is what is because of the insider political classs’ monopoly over that area of law-making. Non-politicians (that’s different from nonpartisans)must be brough in if there is to be any hope. I don’t know where the notion came from that it is someway unamerican to have non-politicians gets there hands dirty re-fashioning electoral mechanisms, but it must be exploded. In fact a perpetual convention of voters to guard against electoral crappiness would be better. Better than jury duty.

    Your concern about experts controlling is not without merit though. The story about how the new CA redistricting commission got rolled by insider pols is a lesson. Intentional inadequate funding was a cancer on those folks spirit, that and the underestimation of the war that can be waged by partisan forces. They wern’t underfunded.

  9. Demo Rep · · Reply

    # 8 Nonpartisan App.V. is for the election of all elected executive officers and all judges.

    See the nonpartisan opinions of the nonpartisan elected Michigan Court of Appeals — the only major part of the Mich regime having some sanity.

    NO executive vetoes is part of the reforms – i.e. by EVIL powermad control freak executive MONSTERS – Johnson, Nixon, Bush II, Obama, etc.

    The EVIL monarchist Hamilton got veto stuff into the U.S.A. Const and lots/all of the State consts.

    Too bad H was not killed much earlier ???

    Like having Hitler survive a whole lot of bullets and shells in WW I — and later a zillion bombs/shells on Berlin in WW II.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: