Winston Churchill has reportedly said, "Democracy is the worse form of government except for all others" (Democracy lecture from POSC 121 Braunwarth). What exactly does that mean? To me it means that there is no perfect form of government and every type has its good and bad qualities. For the sake of this bulletin, it means that the electoral system and the proportional representation system has its pros and cons attached to it. Being where I am at today, knowledge wise, I would have to say the utopian version of proportional representation is better than district elections. According to the book A Novel Approach to Politics, "In nations that use district elections, legislators are elected to represent a particular geographic territory and the big problem with district elections is that someone must draw the district lines" (Van Belle & Mash 179).
What we see according to this textbook, as well as, in our everyday lives is that those some ones who draw the district lines are bound to be self-serving and not too interested in what is the most fair for the people of the districts. In proportional representation, there are still problems, but the people are represented fairly (on the surface). The problem with this system is that there is not always a majority party and therefore coalitions must, often times, be formed. This is sometimes counter-productive for the constituents. "... there is a flaw in the system: the small parties that are in a position that makes them necessary to form a government gain influence that far outweighs the extent of their electoral support" (Van Belle & Mash 177). However, with the electoral system you have people not being represented fairly. The lesser of two evils is proportional representation, at least in my opinion.
We also have the differences of President and Prime Minister to consider. In a proportional system, the Prime Minister (PM) must account for what he does politically on a regular basis. One, he must answer questions based on his weekly political choices from the parliament. Two, the PM must make his decisions carefully so as not to cause a vote of no confidence, which could be both a bad and a good thing because if the PM is of the majority party then that means the majority of people hold that same ideology and if he strays from that he and his party will be held accountable for that. In an electoral system, the President is only accountable if the legislature chooses to hold them accountable. For instance, when Pres. Clinton was sleeping around congress jumped on the opportunity to impeach the president, but when congress found out that all evidence provided concerning "our president's" reasons for going to war in Iraq were fabricated and/or warped from their original meaning they stand by and threaten to do something; however, in reality, nothing is being done. I also prefer the way the PM is brought to power as opposed to the way a president is brought into power (at least here in the U.S.) because it is possible for the majority of people to vote for someone and then that person is not ELECTED for president. Where as, in the parliamentary system the majority party wins then they choose the best for the job from that majority.
A current day issue like gay marriage would be handled differently in a parliamentary system than in an electoral system. In a district system, the issue must be taken up by one of the two main parties in order for any political decisions to be made on the matter in support of gay marriages. Where as, in a proportional system they could form their own party or link with a sympathetic party (even if it is small) and still have some power to accomplish goals in their favor without having to force their way into one of the larger parties.
I agree with Winston Churchill about democracy. In addition, there are problems with both systems, electoral (district) or proportional, but it is still better than being a person inside a dictatorship where you, "the individual", has no say in what happens what so ever.
Do you have a preference? Proportional or member district (“Winner-take-all”)?
Anti-Government, so neither.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
That's an interesting concept. Now that you went there, how would you prevent anarchy?
Have a nice day,
Ceila -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards;
and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." -- Samuel Adams
While anarchy works in theory, I find that it would not bring about the wanted changes should it be implemented, so to speak. Man, as a species, tends to crave power and thus, should we employ anarchy, the person with the best weapon would rule, bringing about a dictatorship.
As it is, I think the best method would be to completely diminish the power of our governments and have the Feds realize that they work for us, and that politics was never meant to be a career.
The dissolution of political parties could also be a start. We were warned by President Washington himself on the dangers of party politics, and yet here we stand a little more than 200 years later showing the world that democracy doesn't work.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I would prefer a different system altogether, where the leader could only be voted in by a majority. Voters could rank the candidates and if no candidate had a majority of 1st place rankings, then the winner would be whoever had the greatest majority when rankings 1 and 2 are added together. Failing a majority there, then it would be 1, 2 and 3. etc.
Also, I would eliminate the Electoral College altogether in favor of a system where each individual`s vote counts equally and voters in one state would not count more than voters in another state.
I agree with doing away with the electoral college (seeing as though we'll always be stuck with the system we have). I also like your idea of the 1, 2, 3 thingy, lol. Of course, we need to eliminate public campaign monies as well.
Have a nice day,
Ceila -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards;
and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." -- Samuel Adams