🚀 go-pugleaf

apnalli@idirect.com (Pangster) writes:

>Theoretically, if 40% vote Liberal, the Grits should hold 40% of the seats.

Why...our system is that of representative democracy...and is a much
superior form of government than that based on proportional representation.
(although a transferable ballot, or a runoff election between the two
top candidates would be improvements to the existing system).

>In Ontario, for example, there is much discussion on who I might feel is
>the best Leader, Rae, McLeod, or Harris.  But that is really irrelevant.
>I am not voting for them, I must choose between the candidates in my riding.
>Really, if I chose to vote for the Natural Law Party (as a few people do)
>that vote is essentially wasted.  Even if 1% of voters choose Natural Law,
>in all fairness those voters should be represented by NL MPP's holding
>1% of the seats.  

Democracy entitles you to freedom of expression and the right to vote...
not to a representative.  The purpose of elections is not to merely
represent the population, but to actually make decisions, to
renormalize the representation.

The voting rights act in the US has created a form or proportional
representation in the US House of Representatives...it has created
majority black districts, which elect black representatives...but
it has totally marginalized blacks in the political process, because
white politicians no longer have to campaign for black votes, to
advocate policies that may be of interest to black voters.  This
is extremely unhealthy.

PR leads to tribal politics...representative democracy leads to
concensus politics.

Gerald