🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3qt1j7$d6m@crl3.crl.com> dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>
>This is the way the U.S. system works, which is why the politics of this 
>country swing back and forth every few years.  I'd like to see an 
>at-large representation where if 30% of the voters voted for the American 
>Independent Party and maybe 11% went with the Communist Party, they'd get 
>representation, too.  In watching European governments play politics, I 
>think coalition governments are much healthier and actually give a little 
>better stability.

  I guess this was the idea of having very small districts, where
  possibly a oddball party would have a prayer of electing someone,
  but how would you propose to do this on a national basis?

  How would you assign the folks to be represented by the "Nuke the
  Liberals" party, for example.  [Ooops, sorry, I guess Orange County
  does have reps.  >:-)]  But seriously, how would you assign
  representation for the less popular agenda folks?  Assign
  "representative at large with no physical location" and give them
  full votes--and make that equal to a senator, house rep or
  something?  You'd have to have senatorial and house type
  representation to do much good wouldn't you?  

  BTW, the main reason many coalitions are so healthy is that they
  never get anything done.  Count me as an anarchist, but keeping
  politicians from actually doing anything is not always such a bad
  idea.