Actually, the problem comes from the fact that we don't have proportional representation! Under truly sophisticated systems, voters elect the candidates to Parliament that best represent their views, then those representatives work with others in Parliament to form a coalition of like minded parties that will govern, with the leader of the largest party becoming Prime Minister.
Instead of voting for the least sleazy candidate (as has become the US norm), voters in those nations vote for the party that represents the closest views to their own--and the total percentage of votes cast for each party determines how many seats it will occupy in Parliament (with the candidates starting from the first one on the party's list down to that number) filling those seats. It works. It's representative. And it allows for the election of representatives who actually DO represent the views of the voters, since they don't have to play to the "middle line" as is true of the parties here in the US. Try it--we'll LIKE it! :-) Rick -- Rick Adams Capella University Graduate School of Technology Grand Canyon University School of Social Sciences Jackson Community College Department of Social Sciences [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone." -Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible" NOTICE: Any views expressed in this message are strictly my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization or institution with which I may be associated, nor do they necessarily represent the views or values of the list or newsgroup in which they may appear. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:38 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: APA Presidential Elections Stephen, after a helpful lesson in Canadian politics says, "And while I'm on the topic of political differences between Canada and the Undecided States, I should point out that voters in the US are allowed only to elect electors, who do the real deciding on who gets to be president. So Americans actually do not have a democratic system. Given that you don't, and that you also possess weapons of mass destruction, we're thinking of invading you to bring freedom and democracy." OK, except that if the electoral college does not provide for democratic elections, election of a Prime Minister by the Parliament also would not be considered democratic. Are members of Parliament bound by law not to switch parties or to vote for someone other than the nominee their party supports? If not, I don't see a big difference between the two systems. At least the electors are elected for a specific purpose (the election of the president) that doesn't get bound up in all kinds of other variables (is the person I support for Parliament the one who will get my Prime Minister candidate elected?). But I am sure I am missing the Canadian perspective on this. Rick --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
