Some more observations on the benefits of minority representation
(and problem too).
It is much easier to make decisions against the interests of some
minority when they are not in the room when compared to the situation
where they sit in the room and give comments on the proposals.
The minority can negotiate. If not about winning the election, at
least on the conditions to approve the proposal in public.
Sometimes small parties may also get disproportional power, e.g. when
the sizes of the parties are 49%, 49% and 2%. But in practice this is
probably not very often a problem. The large parties soon learn how
to play the game without giving too much power to the small party.
Also the small party must in most cases be sincere and not just play
games.
If supermajority rules are used that means that having a minority
smaller than 50% is sometimes crucial.
If the minority would not be represented who else should be there? If
there are e.g. three groupings that are all minorities should we
eliminate one of them and give all their seats to the two biggest
ones (biggest minorities)?
This discussion also made me wonder what the election reform
activists in the two-party countries see as the ideal system for them.
Would it still consist of single seat districts? (with some election
method that would sometimes also outside the two largest parties) Or
would it have full proportional representation?
Would the government still be typically a one party government? Maybe
nominated by a winner of a single winner election, e.g. the
president. Or would the government be typically a multiparty
government (formed e.g. based on negotiations between parties after
the elections)? Note also that the now typical majority status of the
largest party might be typically gone if there were more than two
parties, so one party may not be enough to form a viable government.
Juho
On Aug 15, 2008, at 17:40 , James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition re-organisation.
I also disagree, but for a different reason and even when there is
no chance at all of on-the-fly coalition re-organisation. A
minority of 49% can be very effective in holding the majority to
account and ensuring that the majority's proposals and decisions
are subject to public scrutiny. Here in Scotland, our 32 local
authority councils were all elected from single-member wards (small
electoral districts) by FPTP. We had become used to one-party
states, like Glasgow City Council where one party could hold 74 out
of 79 seats for just 49.6% of the votes city-wide, or Midlothian
Council where one party held 17 of the 18 seats with just 46% of
the votes. When such distorted one-party rule persists for several
decades the political effects are very serious. But we put an
end to that in May 2007 when we elected all our councillors by STV-
PR. Now there is effective opposition and scrutiny in every
council and the minority voices are heard.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1610 - Release Date:
13/08/2008 16:14
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
