-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.27/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.27/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times </A>----- Laissez Faire City Times July 5, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 27 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's Wrong with Proportional Representation by Lauren Bain Every now and then the republic receives a challenge from the la-la land of the Voices. The Voices express their right to be heard, and even the right to win elections. Invariably, they are attributed to minorities. There are Women (who comprise more than 50 percent of the population, and a higher percentage of the voting population); Blacks (who, despite all indoctrination efforts, confound Liberal orthodoxy by refusing to vote as a block); Hispanics (many of whom are conservative voters, a fact incredulous Liberals find especially cloying), and sundry folks who just don't subscribe to a dominant party line. Proportional Representation (PR) awards minority parties seats based on the proportion they receive of the popular vote. The system actually is a vote redistribution scheme that gives Voices a chance. Voters would have lots of choices, proponents gush, because lots more parties would get their people elected. Lots more candidates and discouraged voters would be represented, no votes would be wasted, and best of all, as Catch 22's Milo Minderbinder always said, "everybody has a share." PR redefines everything in politics, including the meaning of "popular." One problem with understanding the pitfalls of PR is the number of PR models out there. No three proponents ever seem to be discussing the same thing. One will concede that the system is impracticable on a Senatorial or Presidential level; another will claim that PR would have changed the 1992 Presidential election. But PR's supporters (Lani Guinier, for instance) agree that under our current system, there are wasted votes, that a PR system is more fair because it would enable more minorities to gain political office, that PR is more representative than the single-member districts we have, and that somehow, productive coalitions will result from its implementation. "Fair" and Other Fallacies PR backers who are not avowed Liberals borrow heavily from the Liberal lexicon, using epithets like "misguided," and "unfair" when referring to their opponents. Unfortunately, some Libertarians support PR, presumably because they see the system as their only shot at getting their people into office. They overlook the fact the PR is basically a subsidy system for non-competitive parties, whereas the present system represents a political marketplace: a free market of parties from which a voter may freely choose. It stings when your party loses a lot of the time, but that's capitalism--make your product better if you want to sell more of it. And PR sports other fallacies. Is there such a thing as wasted votes? No. All votes in this country are recorded and become part of history. When a plurality victor enters the state Legislature with 48 percent of the vote, having toppled a leading contender who got 46 percent and an also-ran who received 6 percent, that new representative is very conscious that he is not the beloved of the majority. He will do everything he possibly can to make everyone very happy, because he needs to appease a lot of voters in his re-election campaign. He will be a coalition builder, and he will be responsive to his local constituents, because he is acutely aware that he lacks a mandate. That is the up- side of a majority-driven republic. This is not to say that everyone gets his way; but, simply that no votes are actually wasted. Is PR a more fair system because it would enable more minorities or minority parties to gain political office? No. Third-party candidate Jesse Ventura astonished Minnesota, the nation, and non-major partisans generally when Minnesota voters elected him governor. Minnesota does not have proportional representation; Ventura was elected by a direct vote. Life in a republic means there are winners and losers. PR smacks of "leveling the playing field." Elections are competitive events; parties compete for governance in the marketplace of ideas. If you're losing, then redesign, repackage, and make yourself saleable. Those who have earned the right to govern American citizens are not obliged to be apologists for the principle of majority rule. If those elected officia ls abuse the trust of that majority, then they fully deserve the voters' rigorous contempt the next time around. Give Us Your Tired, Your Braindead. . . If the majority is braindead, proportional representation will not salvage the republic. Idiocy will simply be distributed among more party lines. Is PR more representative than the single-member districts we have? No. Our taxation districts are local, and our representative districts should be local. Most PR models contemplate at-large voting based along party lines. A representative should be accountable to the constituents who pay taxes to the district he represents. Under the PR system, he is accountable only to his own party. Will PR result in more productive coalition building in legislatures and councils? Possibly, but not necessarily. The real question should be? Do I really want my Libertarian candidate to mind-meld with a liberal Democrat? No; otherwise, why would I want him in office anyway? What have I gained? What has my party really gained? The right to compromise? Would I be glad for his chance to influence the Democrat? Yes, but there are so many other ways to accomplish that influence without overhauling the system we have, and so many disadvantages to implementing PR. Logistic problems with PR abound. Many cities and counties already have serious problems with counting votes with the relatively simple system we have. How enormous could vote-counting problems become with a system that ranks candidates in a series, assigning district representatives in proportion to the votes received? He who develops the algorithm that facilitates that counting nightmare is he for whom Bill Gates is looking over his shoulder. Ironically, PR voting strategies include a reversion to the single-member-district voting format. Assume that voters are given six candidates to rank. If a voter feels strongly about one candidate and indifferent or hostile to the others, she can vote for just that one candidate. That ensures that her favorite gets a vote and that the other candidates do not receive any votes that would assist them in the ranking game. Note that if her favorite candidate is not elected, her vote, according to PR doctrine, is wasted after all. The other way PR potentially results in "wasted votes" is for voters to vote cluelessly down a large slate of candidates after voting their first preference, having had no time or interest in researching which ones they might prefer to rank in what order. The results could easily reflect random chance rather than ranked preference. PR might be appropriate for city council elections, such as Seattle's, that are at-large. But a better system would simply be district reps. Seattle has identifiable neighborhood districts; it would be far better for the city to elect council members along district lines than either at-large or PR. Fragmentation Another problem with PR is the fragmentation of the citizenry across ideological lines. This is perhaps the most sinister unintended consequence. Italy and South Africa are known for having anywhere from 6 to 20 parties on the ballot. Everyone probably sees his favorite party on the ballot. Everyone probably wins some seats. But it's the State that really wins. Representation is so fragmented that either gridlock or a mass mind-meld equivalent to a one-party system inevitably results. PR's champions most likely mean to be fairminded. But we live in a republic founded on the principle of majority rule; there must be winners and losers. I'm a Libertarian; believe me, that majority thing is tough. But when my party puts forth superior candidates and the majority is won over by my party's rational principles, then we'll be winners. I don't want to have Libertarians in office who are sworn to compromise so they can be re-elected. Otherwise, what was the point of having them elected in the first place? The vexing assumption behind PR is that everyone has a right to win. That's a concept belonging to the Special Olympics, not to a republican form of government. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Bain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is a Seattle-area attorney, Libertarian, and a columnist/book reviewer for the Association of Objectivist Businessmen News. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 27, July 5, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
