Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: Proportional Representation
Ontario's having a referendum in the upcoming election about whether to switch to proportional representation (Mixed-Member Proportional to be precise), and I intend to vote for it. I was wondering what everyone thinks of the subject. For those who live in countries with proportional representation: does it work? Do people ever propose switching to a first-past-the-post system? And for those who live in FPTP-land like me, what do you think about proportional representation. It's opponents say that it reduces government stability, what do you think? _________________ L'homme est comme Dieu l'a fait et un peu pire/ L'homme est le seul animal qui détruit pour le plaisir
Mixed Member Proportional Representation is the system used for the Scottish Parliament, and I personally think it's great. In this system, each constituency still has the advantage of being represented by an MSP, whilst the electorate as a whole feels better represented by the Parliament — since, by and large, it actually reflects how they voted, proportionally.
Since single parties tend to be less likely to win an overall majority with proportional representation, it creates the need to reach consensus. I see this as a positive thing, since it engages a variety of interest groups and viewpoints — which are represented in the Parliament proportionally according to the percentage of the electorate who voted for them. In other words, it is a much fairer system.
This is in direct contrast to the UK Government, where the Labour party is able to ram through legislation unopposed, even though only about 35% of those who voted actually voted for them. I essentially feel unrepresented in the UK Parliament, but I certainly feel represented in the Scottish Parliament. (In case you didn't know, I'm moving to Scotland next month, so I see Scottish issues as being much 'closer to home' than most people who live in England would).
Some people argue that, since the first-past-the-post system generally makes it easier for single parties to win an overall majority, it creates greater stability. As far as I'm concerned, that's not what parliamentary democracy is about.
I think proportional representation is a great idea. It allows for a better representation of the will of the people, and it reduces the number of wasted votes. From what I've read, it tends to boost levels of voter turnout - which are horribly low in the US. It also eliminates the problem of gerrymandering: most congressional districts in the US have been gerrymandered into "safe" districts, either strongly Republican or strongly Democratic. This leads to lazy, corrupt politicians, and fosters apathy in voters who find themselves in the minority in a given district. As I once saw it expressed, the voters don't choose their politicians, but rather the politicians choose their voters. PR also tends to increase the number of women and minority legislators. As for political stability, I think our current system has produced political stability of the worst kind: complete duopolistic domination by two large parties, with no possibility of viable opposition. The FPTP system discourages voters from voting from third parties because of the spoiler effect - in the 2000 presidential election, for example, a vote for the Greens was essentially a vote for Bush. (And don't even get me started on the electoral college...)
I think that probably both systems have their pros and their cons; neither is The Answer. But it's always good to try everything once, right? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And what works in one place might not be the best solution for another -- all politics is local, as they say. _________________ An apple a day....
Oh, I should've mentioned — no, I am not aware of any widespread support for replacing proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament with a first-past-the-post system. I mean, I'm sure there must be some people who'd favour that, but it doesn't seem to be something advocated by politicians.
Arguably, there are two main reasons for why the Scottish Parliament was set up with a system of proportional representation when it was created (or resumed?) eight years ago:
1. Pressure from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, who were involved in the constitutional convention prior to the Parliament's creation.
2. The desire of other parties to make it difficult for the Scottish National Party to win an overall majority of seats, and subsequently try to declare independence.
Well, I would imagine that once everyone gets a toehold, no one wants to give it up. 'Specially if they know damn well they'll never win a majority. Imagine if the Green Party could get their foot in the door here -- you'd have to pry their fingernails off to get them to let go!
Just an aside, but how do you say "Sverige", Walker? _________________ An apple a day....
Oh good: that's way better than Sveridge (rhymes with disparage)!
I assume rike is similar in etymology to reich?
And how do you feel about this "Sweden" business? I'm always amused that so many countries have to deal with their names being something else entirely in other languages (we usually just have to live with the occasional spelling change). Europeans seem to particularly love to reassign the names of all of their neighbors! _________________ An apple a day....
Oh good: that's way better than Sveridge (rhymes with disparage)!
Now, that would be crazy!
Quote:
I assume rike is similar in etymology to reich?
Yes! (Drittes Reich - Tredje Riket)
Quote:
And how do you feel about this "Sweden" business? I'm always amused that so many countries have to deal with their names being something else entirely in other languages (we usually just have to live with the occasional spelling change).
Oh, I'm pretty used to "Sweden"... There are weirder names like Ruotsi (Finnish).
Quote:
Europeans seem to particularly love to reassign the names of all of their neighbors!
What do you mean?
Tyskland - Germany
Frankrike - France
Grekland - Greece (Hellas? Hell ass? What're you talkin' about?)
Ungern - Hungary (we have the words ungen and ugnen, so why not Ungern?)
Actually, we don't change the names of other European countries very much, generally speaking. Some small adjustments, that's all. In fact, some names are left unchanged. Also, the names of the cities in Germany and France, for instance, are left unchanged.
For some reason it always bothered me that you call München Munic. And the 'g' Leipzig isn't pronounced like a 'k'!
Yeah, I'm not sure where we got Munich out of Munchen. Or Florence out of Firenze. I can see where some Irish names had to be tamed with a whip and a revolver and beaten into some semblence of pronounceability ... and those French names we just throw up our hands and give up -- we don't change the spellings, but we have no idea how to pronounce them. So we just don't talk about them!
It's a fact that Allied soldiers in France were often more terrified of the street signs than they were of the enemy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
