I agree completely with everything you say. Wearing my cynical hat
today, I would say that those who buy the major parties abhor nothing
more than the thought that an un-bought party might get some say.
They're already spinning oiver the Green inspired phaseout of nukes in
germany.
Caspar davis
At 9:07 AM -0800 1/14/99, Colin Stark wrote:
>I caught a 5 minute interview of N.Z. Prime Minister Jennie Shipley on CBC
>Newsworld
>
>Part of that time was on Proportional Representation
>
>While my knowledge of Proportional Representation in NZ comes mainly from
>the opinions expressed on CDD Listserv by a New Zealander, I was very much
>unimpressed by the views expressed by PM Shipley, egged on by CBC
>Interviewer Don Newman
>
>Her major opinions (prejudices in my opinion) are:
>1 that N.Zealanders are unhappy with the "indecisiveness" of
>Proportional
>Representation compared with the former FPTP
>(first-past-the-post) system;
>2 that Proportional Representation gives undue influence to
>smaller parties
>
>"a smaller party, in proportional terms, carries a greater degree of
>influence of power than the large party (sic) … in fact that is an
>inequity
>in itself . . . we have a minority leading a majority . . .", she says
>
>Seldom have I heard two people manipulate the truth as blatantly as
>Shipley
>and Newman
>
>Think about it!!
>
>1 Would you rather have dictatorship, or "indecisiveness"
>
>2 If three parties have, say, 42%, 35%, and 23% of the popular
>vote (or
>make up your own numbers), which is more fair:
>
>a that one party have a virtual dictatorship?
>b that the 42% party should form a coalition with the party of
>its choice,
>and govern in some kind of a compromise?
>c other (I personally prefer "other", which would include Direct
>Democracy,
>but will reserve further comment till I hear from others)
>
>What do YOU think??
>
>
>Colin Stark
