Congratulations, on the Ph.D., Stephane!
On Sep 1, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Brian Olson wrote:
On Sep 1, 2004, at 6:18 AM, Stephane Rouillon wrote:Stop internal behind-the-scene
deals and start an open and neutral decisional process that would encourage
politicians to take decisions that benefit the most to get reelected.
You're going to have to justify that more. I'm not sure why one system or another minimizes "behind-the-scene deals". As far as I can tell, the best fix is a responsive participatory democracy where people at whatever level (voter, representative) are paying some attention to what goes on in the parts they have a vote over and they vote the bums out as needed.
I'm with Brian on this. I agree (I think) that geographic representatives often engage in pork barrel politics of various kinds, but that's just a perverse reflection of the valid fact that they *are* responsible for looking out for the interests of their region -- not just the people who voted for them. I think there are better ways to avoid back-room dealing than eliminating geographic districts. And there are some advantages. I ran across this lovely quote by Sir Walter Scott:
http://www.rampantscotland.com/quotations/blquotesf.htm
"I dinna ken muckle about the law," answered Mrs Howden; "but I ken, when we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o' our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stanes when they werena gude bairns - Bit naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon."
From "The Heart of Midlothian" by Sir Walter Scott, in 1818.
I think PR and geographic representation both have different structural flaws and advantages. Bicameralism is a one way to play those weaknesses against each other, encouraging more robust legislation. Having two mechanisms with different systematic errors is the best way to improve accuracy.
Cheers, - Ernie P. (my Ph.D. is in physics, so electoral theory is still fun :-)
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
