The Baha'i Studies Listserv
"If the party with a plurality didn't get a majority, then they don't have a 
mandate and they actually should make concessions to the other parties. How is 
that undemocratic?"

It is undemocratic because the small party can force major concessions out of 
all proportions to the size of its constituency. Hence, "wag the dog." 

This is not just theory. Israel is the best example of how muich damage PR can 
cause. Even in its German variant. PR has  the "wag the dog" problem insofar as 
a the Greens with about 12% of the vote can force through massive changes like 
the shutting down of nuclear power stations. (Merkel is now trying to wriggle 
out of that because most Germans think this is nuts.) 

Again, there is no perfect voting system. It's just a matter of choosing "your 
cleanest dirty shirt."

Best wishes,

Ian 




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gilberto Simpson 
  To: Baha'i Studies 
  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:14 AM
  Subject: Re: Religious rejection of politics



The Baha'i Studies Listserv4 percent sounds like a fair and reasonable 
threshold. I don't see how your wag the dog scenario is a big problem. If there 
is a party that can get an outright majority then they have a mandate and don't 
need to make major concessions to smaller parties. If the party with a 
plurality didn't get a majority, then they don't have a mandate and they 
actually should make concessions to the other parties. How is that undemocratic?

  I would suggest the wag the dog problem is actually worse in the two-party 
system. Republican (and Democratic) candidates have to satisfy several 
different constituencies and each of them gets a huge amount of power. I 
suspect that under proportional representation, new parties could afford to 
form and would have more rational amounts of power. The Republicans might split 
up into a Christian conservative party, an anti-immigrant party a pro-business 
party, or Ron Paul style libertarians. The Tea Party could be an actual party. 
The Democrats might became a more unashamedly pro-labor/working class party, 
The Green Party or an "Occupy" party would be viable. On either side of the 
spectrum, the fringes could be marginalized and a coalition between more 
reasonable voices could be formed.


  On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ian Kluge <[email protected]> wrote:


The Baha'i Studies ListservThis true only if there is no minimum percentage 
threshold a party must attain to get representation. Germany, Sweden, Norway, 
for example, have a 4 or 5% threshold. 

    The biggest argument against proportional representation is the "wag the 
dog" scenario, in which parties holding a small percentage of the vote can 
extract major concessions from other parties to form a ruling coalition. In 
efferct this gives very small parties power far beyond their actual support in 
the population. This, too, is highly undemocratic - and wastes the votes of the 
majority. 

    There is no perfect voting method and it's a question of selecting "the 
cleanest dirty shirt." 

    Best wishes, 

    Ian 





    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Gilberto Simpson 
      To: Baha'i Studies 
      Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:24 PM
      Subject: Re: Religious rejection of politics



The Baha'i Studies ListservMy sense is that  Parliamentary systems with 
proportional representation encourage sincere voting. Under such a system, if 
the Green Party is closest to your beliefs, and even if they only get 5% of the 
vote they'll at least get 5% of the seats in Parliament and would be a voice in 
the government and could form coalitions with other parties. There wouldn't be 
the whole "wasted vote" issue.


      On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Susan Maneck <[email protected]> wrote:

        The Baha'i Studies Listserv

        > LL scores people have said they tend Democrat even though they're 
closer to
        > Green Party or Jill Stein
        > Socialist Party USA or Stewart Alexander


        That's part of the problem with the party system. You vote for what
        you think you can get, not for what you think is right.

        __________________________________________________
        You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: 
mailto:[email protected]
        Unsubscribe: send a blank email to 
mailto:leave-676149-68452.e157d5dc5efabb63696f251595c88...@list.jccc.edu

        Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to 
[email protected]
        Or subscribe: 
http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
        Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
        Mail - mailto:[email protected]
        Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
        News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
        Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
        New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]





__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to 
mailto:leave-676221-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected]
Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to