Proportional Representation

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an additional argument is that often these parties have very narrow agendas that would not address many of the issues of governance. By having, for example, 3% of the legislature from the pro-life party would not be productive for many issues at hand. They would likely be elected (and more importantly, re-elected) by those mainly interested in abortion politics and would not be re-elected based on their good legislative abilities. Thus it would likely end up w/ several mp's who were much more interested in being gadflies than constructive members. If they were effective enough at drawing attention to their issues, they need not demonstrate any knowledge about any other topics, even if they have no hope of getting their agenda passed.

Of course some would prefer it this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that "single issue" parties wouldn't make it too far. I suspect that they would be absorbed by more "complete" parties. For example, a single issue anti-abortion party wouldn't get many votes if a more conventional or widely supported party (namely the Conservatives) came out with an anti-abortion item in their platform.

Having said that, if 3% of all the voters care only about one specific issue and they manage to get enough votes to have a representative, that's "better" representation than if those voters have no parties that support their stance on the issue. It may suck when we disagree with their single issue, but it's hardly a fair democracy if we decide that everyone who doesn't fit into a small number of distinct political categories can't be represented.