Good Morning, Juho
re: "... I'm more inclined to see the parties still as units that still
get their strength and mandate to rule from the citizens themselves (and
from their lack of interest to make the parties better and control them
better)."
Although I (obviously) don't share your view, I will agree that the
parties get their strength from the subset of the electorate that
supports them. My dissent is based on (1) the fact that the so-called
'mandate' comes from a tiny subset of the electorate, (2) the 'mandate'
results in destruction of the separation of powers intended to protect
us from improper concentrations of political influence, and (3) it is
maintained by the absolute suppression of alternatives. Instead of
democracy, a tiny minority of the people provide the "strength and
mandate to rule" that dictates the choices available to the rest of us.
re: "Strong emphasis on the regional representation and close contacts
between the representatives and voters may to some extent also reduce
the need to offer full political proportionality."
We should consider the possibility that focusing on 'regional
representation' and 'proportionality' are misleading. An electoral
method that empowers each and every member of the electorate to the
extent of their desire and ability is regional and proportional, by
definition.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
