Proportional Representation

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no downsides, it's just a flat improvement to the system if done well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are no downsides, it's just a flat improvement to the system if done well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but that argument can be used for almost any suggested political system. FWIW, I support PR being as I almost always vote for a third party.

[aujoz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that one mechanism already exists in North America and that could prohibit or limit the influence of such parties, and that is the existing "fundamental principle documents" such at the Constitutions and, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parties that have platforms that would violate the basic rights protected by the fundamental documents would not be able to enact any of their values as law because the courts would uphold the Constitution and override any bill that these parties were able to garner support for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outlawing political parties hasn't done any favours for Zimbabwean democracy.


I believe that PR is significantly compensated for in the US system by the relative lack of party discipline (compared to here in Australia, where we have PR in the Senate, but very, very tight party discipline).

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that one mechanism already exists in North America and that could prohibit or limit the influence of such parties, and that is the existing "fundamental principle documents" such at the Constitutions and, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parties that have platforms that would violate the basic rights protected by the fundamental documents would not be able to enact any of their values as law because the courts would uphold the Constitution and override any bill that these parties were able to garner support for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outlawing political parties hasn't done any favours for Zimbabwean democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean ban the parties, I meant that the laws/bills that would be passed by any government would be subject to being "vetoed" by an overriding fundamental document. This is already the case in all liberal democracies (that I am aware of) and would be a defense against one of the "downsides" of PR.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that one mechanism already exists in North America and that could prohibit or limit the influence of such parties, and that is the existing "fundamental principle documents" such at the Constitutions and, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parties that have platforms that would violate the basic rights protected by the fundamental documents would not be able to enact any of their values as law because the courts would uphold the Constitution and override any bill that these parties were able to garner support for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outlawing political parties hasn't done any favours for Zimbabwean democracy.


I believe that PR is significantly compensated for in the US system by the relative lack of party discipline (compared to here in Australia, where we have PR in the Senate, but very, very tight party discipline).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite mistaken. Half the people in this country don't have a single representative that supports their views. (mild exaggeration, but only mild)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean ban the parties, I meant that the laws/bills that would be passed by any government would be subject to being "vetoed" by an overriding fundamental document. This is already the case in all liberal democracies (that I am aware of) and would be a defense against one of the "downsides" of PR.

[/ QUOTE ]

We had that in this country, but the government simply finds ways to ignore it.

[aujoz]

1) Minor parties that would be elected by PR, by their very nature, do not have majorities. Thus, they're only able to tinker with legislation at the edges.

A Socialist/Communist party in the US would not be able to institute mass murder of people for being homosexual (like they did in Cuba, for example) without a majority in both houses of the legislature.

2)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that PR is significantly compensated for in the US system by the relative lack of party discipline (compared to here in Australia, where we have PR in the Senate, but very, very tight party discipline).

[/ QUOTE ]
You are quite mistaken. Half the people in this country don't have a single representative that supports their views.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand correctly, the suggestion that in a localised area you might not have someone of the same party affiliation is irrelelvant. If I understand incorrectly (which is quite likely) then I have no idea what you're talking about or what you mean.


My comment clearly relates to the national legislative process.

Proportional representation increases the liklihood of the "governing" party to have to negotiate their legislative agenda significantly.


A very good case study is Australia from 1996-2005, compared with 2005-current.

1996-2005 saw a Government minority in the Senate, and there was significant negotiation on a large number of *contentious* bills - eg, Workplace Relations, Tax Reform.

2005-current sees a Government majority in the Senate, and although there is still significant debate (google "Barnaby Joyce") the Government's legislative agenda has increased (Workplace Relations, etc.).