Again, a PR method that gives preference to candidates with broad support will minimize the hazards of dangerous extremists getting too much of a foothold. PAV limited to five member districts would be about right.
Forest On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Adam Tarr wrote: > Steve wrote: > > > ". . . All that kept [Hitler's party] alive was its chance to obtain > >some measure of success in every election in which it participated. Otherwise > >it would probably have disbanded, and Hitler might have resumed the peaceful > >profession of painting houses." > >--Hermens, F. A., _Democracy and Proportional Representation_, University of > >Chicago Press, 1940, pgs 23-4. > > If the people want a Hitler, democracy will not (and, unfortunately, should > not) save them from themselves. The question we have to ask ourselves is, > do we want to give minor parties a voice and a chance to grow? Certainly, > there is the danger of one of these minor parties being malevolent and > ruinous like the Nazi party was. (Of course some here, we know, consider > the current parties in the USA evil anyway). > > In my opinion, this danger is well worth the chance of injecting new > direction to public debate. The actual danger of a Nazi-type party rising > to power in the USA is extremely small. In Weimar Germany, there were > many, many factors (rampant unemployment, the specter of Communism, deep > anti-semitism, the newness of democracy, the stigma of war guilt on the > current government, et cetera et cetera) that do not apply to the United > States or any other established democracy. A few similar factors could > probably be catalyzed by a US party in the right place at the right time, > but not all of them. > > I think the small risk of some bad apples getting a larger voice is a very > small price to pay for the benefit of many more voices being heard in the > public debate. > > -Adam > >
