| Proportional representation isn't good, people... |
Proportional representation isn't good, people...
|
May. 10th, 2010 @ 11:21 am
|
|---|
Let me put it to you this way:
Under proportional representation, the BNP are guaranteed seats in Parliament.
(There are other problems. Proportional representation removes the link between a representative and any specific group of people to represent; if MPs have no constituency to represent, then there is no tie to any local issues or local groups. The sense of accountability is greatly reduced; it's just about nationwide party image.)
Preferential voting is better; I've yet to see a better system at all. Learn from Australia! We have the electoral system you get when your parliamentary system is designed much later than most, and the people designing it look around at the ones that came before and say: "What works? What doesn't? How can we make this better?"
(ObGodwin: Proportional representation is the electoral system that got the Nazis into power.)
|
The very idea of not having someone at the federal/national government level to represent your local interests just seems alien to me, as an American. Granted, there are some parts of the country where faithfully representing the residents' wishes in congress is probably a bad idea, like, say, Arizona (where racial profiling is now legal *facepalm*) and it's pretty much the reason pork in legislation exists, but it's just the way things are set up here. I suspect it's because the states predated the national government as political entities, and a proportional representation system would have taken away part of their sovereignty.
Not that specific localities can't be completely run by single political parties - a lot of US cities were basically run by the Democratic party via machine politics for a lot of the late 19th/early 20th century, and some state governments are essentially Republican machines.
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios |