Anon. wrote:
> H
>
> > But do not rush to a proportional system. It can have very
> > bad consequences, as can be seen from Israel and Italy, and
> > which was the case in France until de Gaulle reformed the
> > structure of the government.
> >
> It works fine in Scandinavia. The Swedish People's Party in Finland has
> been in power since independence (I think), as part of whatever
> coalition was in charge. It works well if the climate is one of
> bi-partisanship, and the Italian and Israeli politicians never give the
> impression of calm moderation. I suspect it would work fine in Britain,
> once the MPs got over the initial shock.
Ignoring any non-UK aspect of the situation ...
I think that there are two issues here. Firstly, is it OK to have a parliament
whose allegiances match that of the overall popular vote. Secondly, how do
you decide who gets elected.
I am comparatively unworried about the first issue (although some european
countries may be having problems with the really extreme right-wing parts
of their electorate).
I am much more worried by the second issue. Taking the first N names from
a list produced by the party machines seems to put far too much power in
the hands of the party machines. There are candidates in both main parties
I respect, and others I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. A mixture of
voting for candidates and voting for a party list would be bettter. [I think
that a lot of people from both main parties got some satisfaction from
Prtilllo's non-election.]
On the other hand it would be nice to be enfranchised in some sense. The
outcome of the election in my constituency is essentially pre-ordained by
the demographics. Neither of the parties I favour stand a chance.
Peter
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
