Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa  Just look at proportional representation, IRV's kissing cousin: What are the advantages of using proportional representation?
The advantages are many. - There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range.
- Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented.
- Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamagordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941.
- There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented.
http://gnu-linux.us/pr.html
Maybe PR would be more wise to implement than IRV??? But I believe the advantages would be similar. Maybe not( http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/...ticles/irv.htm ) |
Well, first, I think too much emphasis is placed on having a diverse set of candidates and elected officials. It does not particularly bother me that less women or minorities are in office. I mean, I'd like those groups to have their fair share of political officials, sure. But that's not at all the problem I'm trying to solve. I'm trying to get
good candidates in office, not a diverse pool of candidates.
The same thing goes with a variety of political ideologies. I don't want everybody to have a very different viewpoint; I want everybody that have the
correct viewpoint.
Voter participation also doesn't matter as much either, for more votes doesn't equate to better candidates.
The real benefit of
PR is issue-oriented campaigns. But it's not quite the same thing as what I'm looking for. Remember, my suggestion is that we remove the decision from the rather uninformed common person, and we move it to people who have dedicated time to understanding politics.
Now, even though
PR will likely change the focus of campaigns to issues, this doesn't mean voters will be more informed. Voters will still know only what candidates tell them. It will still be a popularity contest, however the contest will be more about framing a few of your party's stances in a positive light. So there is no more reason to think that a good party will get the most votes. I mean, who decides which party gets the most votes? It is still the people, and the people are still uninformed about politics. So even though the candidates are talking more about specific issues, they are still campaigning to people who aren't informed.
So as you may be seeing, I think the root problem is really that people are not informed about good political theory, and because of this, the wrong people get elected. If we change the voters from the people to a small group of politically-informed individuals, then we should see an entirely different type of candidate emerge: not one who looks good on TV, but one who really knows what he's talking about.