Thom Baguley wrote:
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> > The UK has effective disenfrachisement of most of the
> > members of its Liberal party. Also, the US was definitely
> > set up NOT to be "democratic"; the British democracy has
> > greatly eroded the rights the people won in the Bill of
> > Rights and the Petition of Right. Democracy is two wolves
> > and a sheep deciding the dinner menu.
>
> It is true that minority parties such as the Liberal Democrats (typically
> 15-25% in polls) are disenfranchised by the first-pass-the-post General
> election system (5-8% in terms of parliamentary seats). However, this is the
> same FPTP system in the US elections (excluding the Electoral College) which
> effectiviely disenfranchises Green, Libertarian, Reform etc voters. In my view
> both would benefit (in terms of fairness) from a more proprtional system.
The UK system certainly needs a system that allows greater scope for minority
parties, as the LibDem experience has shown. Both for their own sake, and
to prevent them inadvertently swinging an election. [Ralf Nader anybody?]
Can I express concern about some interpretations of `a more proprtional system'.
In the UK the pressure for voting reform by single-transferable votes (hard to
argue against) has been hijacked by the suggestion of proportional representation
from lists generated by the parties. While giving better representation -- in a
mathematical sense -- I've not met anybody who thinks it is a good idea. Giving
more power to the party machines just doesn't seem the right way to go.
Peter
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
