Rating: 
Summary: nice book
Review:
I started reading "Fixing Elections" already favoring proportional representation, I finished "Fixing Elections" with even more reasons to support this basic democratic improvement.
Hill demonstrates that PR can reduce negative campaigning and get more women and minorities elected. Hill demonstrates that PR can encourage more issue-oriented campaigns as well.
My one cavil with "Fixing Elections" is that Hill conflates the benefits of PR with the benefits of a parliamentary system. How is there any way to handle a presidential election in any way other than winner-take-all?
Overall, a good book.
Rating: 
Summary: Fixing Elections is the our democracy's main challenge
Review: After 30 years of working the system, I'm becoming cynical as the disconnect widens between what people want, and what their state and federal governments do. "Fixing Elections" brings into focus all the things we hate about politics: congressional gridlock, sound-bite and attack campaigns, boondoggles, gerrymandering, etc. If you feel your vote doesn't count, you're right! Shall I cry, or thank Steven Hill for clarifying why so much of our so-called representative democracy is neither?
Rating:
Summary: Most insightful book on American democracy I have ever read
Review: As one book review said somewhere about Steven Hill's book, Fixing Elections, this book really did change the way I think about American politics. Ever wonder why our political system seems like such a mess? Why there's nothing or nobody to vote for? This book explained to me why better than anything else I have read, and I have a Masters in Political Science. From severe gerrymandering of legislative districts, to poll-driven politicians in a two-choice/party system who slice and dice the electorate and give a disproportionate amount of attention and power to fuzzy-headed swing voters -- those who often know the least about what's going on -- to the regional balkanization of Red vs. Blue America, Steven Hill explains why our geographic-based, single-seat district "winner take all" electoral system is at the heart of so much of what is frustrating and alienating about politics today. Rural and urban splits? Red vs. Blue America? If we didn't elect our representatives from single-seat districts, this wouldn't be such a problem. But because we do, the Dems dominate in cities and the GOP in rural areas, since each side can outvote the other for each one of the individual seats. But if we used something like cumulative voting in three seat districts (which Illinois used for 110 years until 1980), where a candidate needs to win 25% of the popular vote to win one out of three seats, you would see Republicans elected in Chicago, and Dems elected in the downstate rural areas in IL. And that would produce a cross-pollinization of ideas: Chicago Republicans in the Republican caucus, speaking up for housing, education and transportation in the cities, because those are their constituents. Or Democrats speaking up in the Dem caucus for rural issues. Instead, now in IL the two sides are bunkered down in their fox holes, taking shots at each other. This in turn has led to the loss of moderate politicans. You could write similar things about other states as well, WA, CA, and the US Congress as a whole. In other words, the use of single seat "winner take all" districts is exacerbating the partisan polarization and national division we are witnessing in the US right now. It's all in Hill's book, and it's simply amazing, page after page. And well-written too, he's a scholar and a top-notch analyst, who writes with an engaging style that is a rare combination. If you care about the future of our country, do yourself a favor and read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A must read
Review: I am happy to see that most reviewers gave this book excellent marks, and even those who were less generous, were still very enthusiastic - though with some qualifications. The book definitely does a thorough and convincing job of documenting what and how much is wrong with our political system. It is amazing how much that we have come to hate about daily politics (negative campaigning, sound-bite coverage, issue-less analysis of the "horse race", money, gerrymandering, focus-groups, pandering, etc. etc.) can be concisely and convincingly explained in terms of the author's thesis. While I do agree partially with some of the criticism of the book's style (repetitive, etc.), I find one thing lacking in those reviews: an alternative. If anyone knows of one, please post it here. Until then: get this book and read it!!! It may be long, but it is a must-read. In the meantime, perhaps Steven Hill and his colleagues at the Center for Voting and Democracy could come up with a way to present all of this information in a way that has a better chance of getting to the broader public. Not everyone enjoys reading long academic tombs. Most people don't even have the time. But don't get me wrong. This book is the best thing I've read in a while. Everyone should be exposed to the ideas it presents and the information they are backed up with. Without a broad awareness of this material, we have no hope of ever achieving a democratic society. Before reading the book, I would have said, "...hope of ever recovering our democracy." Now I know we never really had one and that now even the illusion is slipping away.
Rating:
Summary: It's not the politicians, it's the system.
Review: I really struggled with this book, but not because of its message. Indeed, the thorough review of the failures of American Winner-Take-All elections is impressive. Phenomena like voter apathy, low turnout, campaign smear tactics and sound-bite politics are all expertly traced back by Hill to the systematic marginalization that is the hallmark of our Winner-Take-All electoral scheme. But this book is infuriatingly redundant. Don't get me wrong -- I love reading; can't get enough. But this book is so repetitive as to try any book lover's patience. A more discerning editor could have trimmed this book down to half its size. So I would defintely recommend buying this book -- but be prepared for a long, meandering journey.
Rating:
Summary: The most amazing book
Review: I would give it six stars if I could. This is the most insightful book on American politics I have ever read. It transformed how I look at politics in this country. So much of what ails our democracy -- low participation, poor representation, poor quality of campaigns, policy that doesn't reflect what the majority of Americans want, partisan bickering and polarization,on and on -- the author brilliantly shows how it can all be traced back to the Winner Take All political system we use in the U.S. ONe of the most interesting riffs was how much of what we usually attribute to a lack of campaign finance reform -- lack of political competition, or choice for voters, or accountability -- is really more directly impacted by the incentives of the Winner Take All system. Fascinating. If you read one book on politics this year, make it this one.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Synopsis
Review: It took me a while to get through this book (the writing style was somewhat confusing to me), but the message makes the book: The US' democracy technology (not the voting machines, but the voting system itself) is obsolete. The book details the many inequities and problems inherent in our electoral systems. Want a more functional and representative democracy? Buy this book, read it, join fairvote.org, write letters to your legislators, do something.
Rating:
Summary: I agreed with both...
Review: the positive and negative reviews of this book. The positive reviews correctly pointed out that Hill points out numerous flaws in single-member districting, such as the unrepresentation of demographic and political minorities and the dangers of gerrymandering. But the negative reviews correctly pointed out that the book includes lots of gratuitious conservative-bashing, thus limiting its appeal to anyone to the right of Ralph Nader.
Rating:
Summary: READ THIS BOOK!!! A real eye opener!
Review: This book is the "Silent Spring" of our political system. It's full of facts and anecdotes that will make you astonished and wondering why everyone is not apalled and talking about these failures of our system and how we can change it. Everyone knows that something is very wrong with our flailing democracy and the people at the helm, but Hill has really exposed the under belly that rarely gets talked about. He is helping us to see how the U. S. electoral system's failure has permeated the very fabric of our policy decisions and lead to citizen non-participation and despair. Each chapter is well written, compelling, eye opening and revelatory. I am still thinking deeply about the implications of Fixing Elections' arguments and know that this is essential information for the future if we are to survive as a democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Fundamental Sound. Editorially a Nightmere.
Review: This book paints a very disturbing picture of democracy in America at the turn of the twenty-first century, but thankfully it paints an equally hopeful vision about how to fix it. The crux of the problem is that the electoral system the United States uses in its elections is over two hundred years old and needs to be updated to suit the times. In 1789 the American constitution was revolutionary, but now it has fallen behind nations like Ireland, the UK, New Zealand, and France in terms of ensuring representative democracy. In order to fix the problem, Mr Hill suggests the the US adopt some sort of proportional representation system to replace the winner take all system we have now. Under such a proposal, the number of seats a party wins in an election is tied to the percentage of the vote they received. So if the Green Party gets 9 percent of the vote, they will get 9 percent of the seats. Under the current system, 9 percent gets you nothing, you actually have to get more votes than anyone else in at least one district. Mr. Hill convincingly makes his case for proportional representation, however his style of writing nearly undercuts it. He feels the need to interject his opinions about all matters political, cultural, and religious into almost every sentence, rather than focus on the matter at hand. He clearly displays a left of center bias, which doesn't conflict with my politics, but I worry how a conservative might ignore his opinions on electoral reform because of Mr. Hill's gratuitous references to his support for leftist politics. Electoral reform shouldn't be a left or right issue. It is a matter of democracy and fairness. And although Mr. Hill admirably makes a logical case for electoral reform, he may have unfortunately drowned himself out with his pop-culture references and leftist din.
|
