On 14 Mar 2003 at 16:02, S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:36 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I had to write a paper once on all the pros and cons I could come up with for different types of representations. It turns out that for all types of representation systems it is possible to come up with scenarios where the representation unfair in respect to the voting result. Actually neither of our current systems is good when you compare it to the direct representation like f.i. that of the ancient Athenians. Then again in ancient Athens only free _male_ citizens had a vote .... :o)
If you have it arround I'd love to read it.
I just knew someone was going to ask me this. The reason I didn't offer is because it was some 15+ years ago, when I was still in high school. I did what all kids do best at that age. Be totally bored with anything remotely school and focus on being a teenager. I had to write the damn thing to pass my grade. You might say it was some extra curricular stuff. In hindsight I have to say it was probably meant well. The teach must have thought it might get me interested and able to pass the grade. Wrong, wrong and right. Although I got the information chisseled into my brain that way, the exercise also scarred me for life. I aced all the tests on the subject but I was never again even remotely interested in politics. <grin> For understandable reasons (besides it being in Dutch and for me pre-puter) I didn't keep it around. I do however recall some of the conclusions of it.
I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's "First Past the Post" system - at no time because of demographics (I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted (I've always supported the minority candidate, it seems. Because I don't like ANY of the three major parties, I vote on personalities of the individuals involved).
Lemme see. I recall that this first pass the post system, has the advantage of not having any real minorities. Also there usually aren't major shifts in political colour unless something major upsetting happens within the country. I believe the worst part of the English system was that even if a large minority in the country is voting for one particular party, the spread over the country still makes it hard for that party to get through to the centre of power. But this also keeps the major decision making somewhat easier with large continuity, because there are no really small parties that have to be taken into consideration. In the Netherlands the smaller parties are represented proportionally, without the (German) threashhold of 5% (and you were correct about the reason for that threashold). In the Netherlands you can get really small parties, with itty bitty interests that can make any decision making process grind to a halt. Then again representation is rather fair and the possibility for reaching majorities is multiple. This makes dependences on minorities smaller then in the Geman system. It also keeps the decision making process dynamic, with lots of tradeoffs, compromise and negotiations. This makes for some rather good short time politics. Unfortunatly there is a big potential for shifts during elections which makes long term planning somewhat hair raising and more often then not re-re-re-re-..etc...-reversible. The German system is a mix of passing the post and the Dutch system. It has the advantage of being fairer then the English system while at the same time getting stability without fragmentation. It does however give small parties on occasion a lot of leverage. (Not in Dan's much quoted example however. The goals of some of the parties makes them natural enemies. The greens and the CDU/CSU would never go well together. SPD and greens form a somewhat more natural albeit forced alliance. They both have to work hard to keep the coalition going, which makes for good enough politics to keep them in power.)
Sonja GCU I still hate politics..... _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
