The Shays-Meehan Spam Finance Bill

[Gordon Mohr]

Russell writes:
> Gojomo:
> >Alternatively, and I think I've mentioned this idea here
> >before, instead of having set polling times and terms for
> >representative legislative offices, let people assign
> >(and reassign) their franchise to representatives as
> >desired. To be seated in the legislature, a representative
> >would need to have at least some threshold number of
> >proxies.
> 
> You have reinvented proportional representation.

Not really; "proportional representation" as popularly
conceived still has terms of office and general elections
at specified times. Once seated, each legislator's vote
has the same weight. There is a set number of legislators.

The system I intended to describe above has no set
election times -- a voter can move their proxy between
reps at any time. Different reps have different voting
strengths: one's vote on pending legislation could easily
have 10-20x the weight of another's vote. The number
of seated legislators would vary regularly depending
on the distribution of citizen proxies.

> This is the "radical" idea that by authoring a paper on
> it, Lani Guanier disqualified herself for the Clinton
> cabinet.

I don't recall it that way, nor can I find independent 
reporting that suggests that the concept of proportional 
representation was what people found objectionable about
Guinier's views.

Rather, there was a characterization, perhaps false
(like so much which is generated to fire-up opposition
to political appointments), that she wanted to reserve
or guarantee certain levels of representation for groups
by race.

That's what people reacted against -- not PR itself.

- Gordon