"Proportional" Representation
Without discussing the politics of the country for which I've just started another thread, I've long opposed any move to PR voting systems. I believe some here do agree with them, but can anyone endorse this method?
The ND party in Greece has just been humiliated by the voters. It's votes collapsed from 33.5% of the vote to 18.5%. The outcome? It's number of seats has gone up from 91 to 108.
Does anyone think that makes sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_l...election,_2012
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
But Greece doesn't have a strictly PR system. It gives 50 seats to the largest party...
Hope is the denial of reality
Which is quite common in so-called PR systems in order to try and get around the problem of PR causing instability and trying to provide grounds for stable governance.
So, PR systems are bad because they allow people to vote wrong? Seems like we could easily expand this to encompass democratic systems in general.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
No it's not how people vote thats wrong, it's the system that's stupid.
Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. You see nothing wrong with a system that would effectively disenfranchise 81% of the population for the sake of stability? Why not just go a step further and disenfranchise 100%?
Hope is the denial of reality
Not that I'd disagree, given democracy's track record, but I bet the Greeks could find a way to screw up even that kind of system, somehow.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
They did in the early '70s.
Hope is the denial of reality
Need methods that support the condorcet criterion.
Hope is the denial of reality
That doesn't rule out condorcet methods.
So... Greece just needs a Putin or a Chavez, then?I think they satisfy Condorcet's conditions, at least within their countries.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Voter stupidity is a completely separate problem.
Is it, though?
Seems to me that it's the very root of the problem, and the unavoidable flaw in any democratic system. Every system tries, somehow, to (unsuccessfully) work around it or mitigate it, but ultimately, we end up with tyrants and idiots and proponents of long-discredited theories and philosophies in power because masses of stupid voters elect them.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
No. But that's not proportional. Anyway same could happen in a majority voting system.
But I like you're way of arguing. Let's take an example that doesn't implement the system you dislike and argue against the system based on that flawed implementation. That's like arguing against universal healthcare based on the UK healthcare system.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Which is not PR. More common ways of doing so are an election threshold, I would think. Never heard of this before anyway.
So your problem isn't with the PR bit of their system, it's with their own addition. So how exactly is this a criticism of PR
Plus, your criticism seems to be that it's not fair that a party got more seats than their share of the vote suggests. Yet at the same time in the Eurogeddon thread you seem to suggest they should have had more seats (like in a FPTP system - the biggest parties get an advantage). In fact, this kind of result is impossible in a proper PR system but is perfectly possible in a FPTP system. So what exactly is your point, if any?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote