The Baha'i Studies Listserv In Canada we have multiple parties too - and wag the dog is precisely what we get unless we have a majority government. When we didn't - and we didn't until May, 2010 - we had wag the dog situations that stalled government action on numerous important issues. Canadians of all stripes were totally fed up with the endless political wrangling that accomplished very little substantive legislation. They finally elected a majority and things are getting done.
Canada has been through this dance several times in my life-time so I don't see the advantages of PR in such glowing terms. As for the Greens in Germany, vis-a-vis shutting down nuclear power it is obvious that if the majority of Germans thought this was a key issue, they would have given the Greens more than 12% of the vote. They didn't - so clearly it wasn't that important to them - which means that the Greens had no business forcing this on the nation. They didn't have the public mandate on that issue. Classical wag-the-dog. I suppose we can wrangle about how you meant "extreme" political views but I don't see any value in that. However, I do know that Churchill was seen as an extremist by much of the British population and political establishment for his views on Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the British Empire as well as British society. As I said, we must learn to distinguish between moderation and the indecisiveness, confusion and sheer cowardice that sometimes masks itself as moderation. Best wishes, Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Gilberto Simpson To: Baha'i Studies Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:58 PM Subject: Re: Religious rejection of politics The Baha'i Studies Listserv On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Ian Kluge <[email protected]> wrote: The Baha'i Studies ListservIf 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 To: Baha'i Studies 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 <[email protected]> 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 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-676232-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@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]
