[EM] Re: PR not representing median voter, and a system using best of PR and sin

[Dgamble997]

Kevin Venzke wrote in part:

"On a different subject, I'm wary of PR generally, because I'm not confident that
the median voter is likely to be represented... Do "median parties" really
exist?
I want the electoral (and constitutional) method to guarantee that the median
voter
has a veto. (If it were possible, I would like to give a veto to every voter in
a certain central chunk.)"


Any system in which ANY subgroup of voters has a formal veto is NOT a democracy.

What is so good about the " median voter" that they deserve a veto?

How on Earth do you propose to select those voters worthy to exercise this privileged right of veto over the majority ?

This has got to be the worst idea I've seen posted on this list.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.


Clinton Mead wrote partially in response to Kevin's post this :

"A condorcet single seat lower house guarantees representation for the
middle ground. It would produce a strong and stable government around
the centre of political thinking (to the exclusion of non-centre
representation). Because of this, the lower house would be the driving
force of policy. The upper house, proportionally represented, would act
as a house of review."

It is gratifying to see a Condorcet supporter agree with the analysis I have made in various posts of the likely results of using Condorcet in single member seats to elect a multi-member body ( centrist domination ).

It is rather less gratifying to see it presented as a good thing. Domination by one party or group ( any one party or group ) is a bad thing. The ability to change government is necessary for a strong democracy. Too much stability results in political stagnation, corruption and complacent government. Does anybody think the 70 + years of PRI government in Mexico was a good thing ?

David Gamble