Look, I'm trying to explain this so you can understand it. You don't understand how PR works. I've probably tried to explain this in the past using the example of Germany, and you don't get it. So I'm trying to give the example of your state.
So...going to answer the question that was actually asked, or are you just going to tap-dance?
He's not sure.
www.newsweek.com
So, in 2024 Nevada was the 5th closest race in the US presidential election. It was 3.1% between Trump and Kamala.
In 2020 it was the 3rd closest closest and went to Biden.
It's a swing state. It actually has a certain amount of say in the election.
But it wasn't within the tipping point either time. What Nevada voted in 2024, what it voted in 2020, 2016 or before, how Nevada votes makes NO DIFFERENCE to the US presidential election.
It could. It just doesn't.
So, the people of Nevada go out there and vote, and then they're basically ignored.
Map shows states where Biden and Trump spend the most money
Several states have received significantly more funding than others in the 2024 campaign.
"The swing state that Biden is spending the least on is Nevada"
"Biden has spent $1.8 million here so far—almost ten times less than what his campaign is spending in Pennsylvania. However, it's still significantly more than Trump's $366,000."
So, even in 2024, the two candidates looked at Nevada and saw it as a swing state, and said.... not much point. Trump really didn't try very hard in Nevada at all, and still won it. And it didn't make a difference to him.
And Nevada is a swing state.
In 2024 Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania decided the election
In 2020 Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania decided the election
In 2016 Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania decided the election
So, essentially the US president in the last three elections has been decided mostly by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
If we take the results as they stood in those elections, rather than try and figure out how people would change their votes with PR, then close races would happen in states. There wouldn't be certain states with a mix of political views, with those few swing voters making all the difference.
Literally in 2024 120,000 people was the difference between Trump and Kamala.
In 2020 it was 80,000 votes, in 2016 it was 44,000 votes.
So, a whole election could change based on what a few hundred thousand people do in a state on the other side of the country. It's now what the people of Nevada want.
Then we have to look at the fact that in Nevada everyone voted Republican or Democrat. Less than 2% of people bothered to vote for other parties. Everyone knows it's a waste of time.
With Proportional Representation you might see 30% voting for Rep, 30% for Dem and the other 40% voting for other parties because their vote would matter.
What do the people want? Do they want Rep and Dem?
No, evidence from every country that does PR, suggests that people's views vary massively.
Germany has 6 political parties that get elected and are viable. That's because political parties need 5% to get seats with PR. In Denmark it's 10 parties because parties need 2%.
So, in Nevada potentially 40% of the people voting aren't choosing WHO THEY WANT, they're choosing who they don't want. They're voting AGAINST the party they hate. Not very good, is it?
Why would you still have an EC system? You can get rid of it.
www.dw.com
Why would you still have an EC system? You can get rid of it.
In Germany people get power to run the country.
In 2025 the CDU/CSU got 208 seats, out of 630. The AfD got 152 seats, the SPD 120, the Greens 85, the Left 64, Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance zero and the FDP zero.
So the largest party got 33% of the seats.
So the CDU/CSU and the SPD formed a coalition to govern for four years.
The CDU/CSU could have formed a coalition with the AfD, both of them are right wing, but the CDU/CSU don't like the AfD because they're more like MAGA, crazy politics.
And yes, the SPD are like Dems, and the CDU are like Reps, and you'd probably still have people with "Rep and Dem" after their name. But they wouldn't be the same.
Why?
Because right now you have two types of seats. Those which are massively for one party, and will always be for that party.
2026 CPR House Race ratings | Cook Political Report
www.cookpolitical.com
There are absolutely LOADS of these seats on both sides. 189 for Dems, 186 for Reps. Then you have the toss ups, 18. Lean one way or the other, 18. So the vast majority of seats aren't going to change, unless they redistrict.
Louisiana 6th Congressional district used to be so Republican, like in 2022 it was 80.4% for the Republicans and the Democrats didn't even bother. Graves had been elected every time since 2014. Then they redistricted it, to make it a Democrat district in weird gerrymandering.
Graves spent $2,400 to win the election in 2014. He didn't even need to try. How he got the seat I don't know, maybe someone liked him and put him in, or maybe he needed to spend money to get the seat, and once there, he was made.
California 13 was the closest race in 2024, 0.09% between the candidates. Adam Gray of the Democrats won by less than 200 votes. He spend $6.2 million on his election, his opponent spent $4.3 million, so $10.5 million spent on just one seat.
You don't need to attract the voters, you need to attract the money.
In Germany their whole election cost much less.
The secret to Germany's thrifty elections
Tax money, no limits on donations and somehow campaigns that are much cheaper than in many other countries — DW examines how German parties get their money.
"In 2017, the last time Germany held a parliamentary election, parties spent €92 million ($109.6 million)"
So, the German federal election in 2017 cost 10 times more than one close seat in California. It cost a little bit more than the most expensive senate race.
It's not about money, money doesn't buy you success, appealing to the voters does, because the voters have CHOICE.
Which means politicians have to appeal to the voters, and they can easily lose their seats, and their power, if the people don't like what they're offering.
As I said, UKIP in the UK spend decades, got 12.6% of the vote under FPTP and end up with one seat. No incentive for people to vote for them, they don't punish the ruling parties with their vote. But with PR in Germany, their vote is so easy to punish politicians.
The people therefore have oversight and the politicians are beholden to them. In the US it's only about money, or being part of one of two parties. Look at the Tea Party movement, it was there, but it could never do anything and then it had to change into MAGA.
Change is much harder, you have crazy politics. The Dems supporting open borders would be much harder in Germany (though they have had issues with that, hence why the major parties have been struggling of late).
They might not be taken seriously in the first election. But things would change.
They might not be taken seriously in the first election. But things would change.
The reason people wouldn't take third parties seriously is because they don't now.
Austria had a two party system until 1983.
Elections in Austria - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In 1983 the SPÖ got 47.6% of the vote, and the ÖVP got 43.2% of the vote, for 90.8% of the vote.
In 1986 it was 43.1% to 41.3%, 84.4% of the vote, so 6.4% of people had changed their vote. Not much of a change, but a change.
In 1990 it was 42.8% to 32.1%, or 74.9% of the vote, now 15.9% of people had changed.
In 1994 it was 34.9% to 27.7%, or 62.6% of the vote.
In 2024 it was 21.1% to 26.3% of the vote, 47.4%.
Change takes time. You can't just expect people to understand, but after a few elections, they will see, and the politicians will understand that the game has changed.
Yes, people still band together. Political parties will still exist, but people will move away from the traditional, the mentality will change. It's human nature.
The US is already trying to see the Republican Party split, with the Tea Party, then MAGA, but the system, the fear that the Dems will always win, is what keeps it together. With PR they wouldn't need to stay together and more sensible politics can come to the fore and more radical can congregate together in their groups too.
And you said it, tribalism to keep the other party out of power. Well, PR would change that mentality, because you would no longer have negative voting.
You could vote for another political party on the right or the left, knowing your vote COUNTS towards the make up of seats on the right or the left.
