cawacko
Well-known member
From a progressive columnist in our local paper today. I've not heard this argument before, consociated representation, but since this is a board of political junkies curious if anyone else has.
Should Floridians get to vote in California elections and vice versa? It’s not as crazy as it sounds
Should Floridians get to vote in California elections? Should Californians get to cast ballots in Florida?
These questions might seem strange. They’re not. Gov. Gavin Newsom just broadcast his first re-election TV ad, not in California, but in Florida, appealing to Floridians to fight against the agenda Florida Republicans, or move to California, where they presumably would vote for the governor. In response, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis blasted California policies and accused Newsom of treating Californians “like peasants.”
The tussle has been dismissed as partisan trolling, and evidence of both governors’ presidential ambitions. But its import is broader than that. Unwittingly, Newson and DeSantis are opening the door to a novel democratic idea with global implications.
It’s called “consociated” representation.
The dictionary definition of “consociated” is “brought into association.” In democracy, “consociated representation” would give people the power to vote for representatives in places with which they are associated, but are not their own cities, states or nations.
The idea has appeal because, especially in a hyper-connected world, the decisions of governments other than our own can profoundly affect our lives. Consider how manufacturing policies in Mexico or Southeast Asia have changed the economies of American communities. Or think of how the decisions of big city government can shape the job prospects, transportation options and safety of those in surrounding suburbs.
Or, in the context of the Newsom ad, which says that Florida’s educational and health policies threaten basic freedoms, consider how the governments of big states like California and Florida can affect each other and national policies as well.
Florida has so limited the rights of women and transgender people that California is changing laws and starting programs to make itself a sanctuary for people who must leave. Meanwhile, California routinely leverages its size to shape laws elsewhere, on matters from climate change to immigration.
In such a context, Californians deserve more of a say about what Florida does — and, yes, vice versa.
But how? A groundbreaking proposal for consociated representation comes from Joachim Blatter and Johannes Schulz, political scientists at the University of Lucerne in Switzerland, writing in the European Journal of International Relations.
Blatter and Schulz argue that globalism has allowed national leaders and unaccountable international organizations like International Monetary Fund to have undemocratic influence over people in other countries. This, in turn, has inspired populist backlashes that polarize politics, threaten the unity of federal systems like the European Union or the United States, and undermine democracy.
Their answer to this populist backlash is to expand democracy and link voters in different nations and states. Blatter and Schulz argue that governments whose policies overlap should “mutually grant their citizens the right to elect representatives not only in their domestic parliament, but also in the parliaments of ‘consociated democracies.’”
Under their proposal, these “foreign” voters could not elect many representatives in other places — only a handful of seats in your parliament would represent people from other places. And they say legislatures should expand to accommodate these new “consociated” representatives — no one would lose representation in the process.
It’s a modest step, but one that could “channel popular dissatisfaction into productive lines” of democratic conversation and collaboration between states, Blatter and Schulz write. Systems of what two scholars call “horizontally expanded and consociated democracies” could offer at a little defense both against internal authoritarianism and against external enemies (like Russia and China) that exploit divisions within democracies.
Consociated democracy would be a natural for California, a future-shaping nation-state. To start, California could negotiate with other Western states that are already political allies — Oregon or Washington — to form a consociation of democracies. A harder step would be to form a consociation with other large states with whom we sometimes quarrel — imagine California, Texas and Florida agreeing to allow their citizens to elect representatives in each other’s states.
Such arrangements, while novel, are not entirely new. Blatter and Schulz note that as more people have multiple national citizenships, it’s become more common to vote in multiple countries. And elements of consociated democracy are already present in California.
The city of Los Angeles allows people to vote in local neighborhood councils even if they don’t reside in that neighborhood — having even a tiny interest in a place (even if it’s only stabling a horse there) gives you democratic rights. And the state of California allows people and groups from other states to sponsor ballot initiatives that enact laws and amend our state’s constitution. California’s legislative term limits and animal rights protections were brought to us in this way by non-Californians.
I, for one, feel strongly that I should be able to vote in Los Angeles city elections even though I live in a small city nearby. I work in L.A. I spend most of my leisure time there and pay local sales taxes. And I depend on roads and trains overseen by L.A. officials.
So why shouldn’t Los Angeles empower me — and residents of other surrounding cities — to vote for a couple of additional members to represent us on the City Council?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...idians-get-to-vote-in-California-17308657.php
Should Floridians get to vote in California elections and vice versa? It’s not as crazy as it sounds
Should Floridians get to vote in California elections? Should Californians get to cast ballots in Florida?
These questions might seem strange. They’re not. Gov. Gavin Newsom just broadcast his first re-election TV ad, not in California, but in Florida, appealing to Floridians to fight against the agenda Florida Republicans, or move to California, where they presumably would vote for the governor. In response, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis blasted California policies and accused Newsom of treating Californians “like peasants.”
The tussle has been dismissed as partisan trolling, and evidence of both governors’ presidential ambitions. But its import is broader than that. Unwittingly, Newson and DeSantis are opening the door to a novel democratic idea with global implications.
It’s called “consociated” representation.
The dictionary definition of “consociated” is “brought into association.” In democracy, “consociated representation” would give people the power to vote for representatives in places with which they are associated, but are not their own cities, states or nations.
The idea has appeal because, especially in a hyper-connected world, the decisions of governments other than our own can profoundly affect our lives. Consider how manufacturing policies in Mexico or Southeast Asia have changed the economies of American communities. Or think of how the decisions of big city government can shape the job prospects, transportation options and safety of those in surrounding suburbs.
Or, in the context of the Newsom ad, which says that Florida’s educational and health policies threaten basic freedoms, consider how the governments of big states like California and Florida can affect each other and national policies as well.
Florida has so limited the rights of women and transgender people that California is changing laws and starting programs to make itself a sanctuary for people who must leave. Meanwhile, California routinely leverages its size to shape laws elsewhere, on matters from climate change to immigration.
In such a context, Californians deserve more of a say about what Florida does — and, yes, vice versa.
But how? A groundbreaking proposal for consociated representation comes from Joachim Blatter and Johannes Schulz, political scientists at the University of Lucerne in Switzerland, writing in the European Journal of International Relations.
Blatter and Schulz argue that globalism has allowed national leaders and unaccountable international organizations like International Monetary Fund to have undemocratic influence over people in other countries. This, in turn, has inspired populist backlashes that polarize politics, threaten the unity of federal systems like the European Union or the United States, and undermine democracy.
Their answer to this populist backlash is to expand democracy and link voters in different nations and states. Blatter and Schulz argue that governments whose policies overlap should “mutually grant their citizens the right to elect representatives not only in their domestic parliament, but also in the parliaments of ‘consociated democracies.’”
Under their proposal, these “foreign” voters could not elect many representatives in other places — only a handful of seats in your parliament would represent people from other places. And they say legislatures should expand to accommodate these new “consociated” representatives — no one would lose representation in the process.
It’s a modest step, but one that could “channel popular dissatisfaction into productive lines” of democratic conversation and collaboration between states, Blatter and Schulz write. Systems of what two scholars call “horizontally expanded and consociated democracies” could offer at a little defense both against internal authoritarianism and against external enemies (like Russia and China) that exploit divisions within democracies.
Consociated democracy would be a natural for California, a future-shaping nation-state. To start, California could negotiate with other Western states that are already political allies — Oregon or Washington — to form a consociation of democracies. A harder step would be to form a consociation with other large states with whom we sometimes quarrel — imagine California, Texas and Florida agreeing to allow their citizens to elect representatives in each other’s states.
Such arrangements, while novel, are not entirely new. Blatter and Schulz note that as more people have multiple national citizenships, it’s become more common to vote in multiple countries. And elements of consociated democracy are already present in California.
The city of Los Angeles allows people to vote in local neighborhood councils even if they don’t reside in that neighborhood — having even a tiny interest in a place (even if it’s only stabling a horse there) gives you democratic rights. And the state of California allows people and groups from other states to sponsor ballot initiatives that enact laws and amend our state’s constitution. California’s legislative term limits and animal rights protections were brought to us in this way by non-Californians.
I, for one, feel strongly that I should be able to vote in Los Angeles city elections even though I live in a small city nearby. I work in L.A. I spend most of my leisure time there and pay local sales taxes. And I depend on roads and trains overseen by L.A. officials.
So why shouldn’t Los Angeles empower me — and residents of other surrounding cities — to vote for a couple of additional members to represent us on the City Council?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...idians-get-to-vote-in-California-17308657.php
