The Baha'i Studies Listserv On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Ian Kluge <iankl...@netbistro.com> wrote:
> ** > > The Baha'i Studies Listserv > > If the 80% figure were really accurate, then the Greens would get more > than 12% of the popular vote in elections. Voting is the only poll that > counts . . . and the Greens don't get anywhere near 80%. > That doesn't follow at all. Political parties take positions on a whole series of issues. Just because one of their positions is popular with the voters that doesn't automatically translate into popularity at the polls at the same level. That would be especially true in the case of a multiparty system. > . > > Yes, the winner-take- all system does have disadvantages - but it also > elects a clear leader and that has great advantages. In PR that's not > always the case. > > It's not always bad to be dominated by extreme voices. Churchill was an > "extreme voice" in 1938 -39, yet we are all very lucky that he was. > Sometimes extreme situations require extreme answers. Moderation is > sometimes only a mask for indecisiveness, confusion or cowardice. It is not > always a virtue. > Firstly, talking about the virtues of extremism (not a position one hears often) is a very different kind of argument from saying that the system is more democratic. Secondly, I don't think I would call Churchill an extremist (at least not in the sense I've been discussing.) An establishment mainstream political figure taking a bold position on a particular question is very different from being a fringe candidate at one end of the political spectrum. Thirdly, England's multiparty system is actually an example of the kind of thing I am advocating. They have three major parties with minor parties playing a role. . ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Gilberto Simpson <gilberto.simp...@gmail.com> *To:* Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> *Sent:* Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:57 PM *Subject:* Re: Religious rejection of politics The Baha'i Studies Listserv I don't seen how the Green Party is an example of Wag the Dog. Apparently 80% of the German people are against nuclear power. It seems like a pretty democratic decision. http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/03/23/why-germany-is-saying-good-bye-to-nuclear-power/ But more broadly, how is proportional representation MORE susceptible to "wag the dog" than our winner-take-all system? To win elections in the US the major parties still have to stay loyal to their base. In the US political discourse is dominated by the extreme voices. It least under proportional representation there is the (I would say likely) possibility the parties could fracture and reasonable voices in the center could come together and ignore their respective fringes. On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kluge <iankl...@netbistro.com> wrote: > ** > > 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 <gilberto.simp...@gmail.com> > *To:* Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: Religious rejection of politics > > The Baha'i Studies Listserv > > 4 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 <iankl...@netbistro.com>wrote: > >> ** >> >> The Baha'i Studies Listserv >> >> This 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 <gilberto.simp...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:24 PM >> *Subject:* Re: Religious rejection of politics >> >> The Baha'i Studies Listserv >> >> My 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 <sman...@gmail.com> 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: >>> gilberto.simp...@gmail.com >>> Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto: >>> leave-676149-68452.e157d5dc5efabb63696f251595c88...@list.jccc.edu >>> Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to >>> ly...@list.jccc.edu >>> Or subscribe: >>> http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st >>> Baha'i Studies is available through the following: >>> Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu >>> 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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net >>> New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu >>> >> >> > __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:arch...@mail-archive.com Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:leave-676229-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.edu Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu 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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
