16 ms·

"Your bit about coalitions is a strong point I hadn't considered when I wrote my post." That kind of points to you're not really appreciating was politics is a

"Your bit about coalitions is a strong point I hadn't considered when I wrote my post." That kind of points to you're not really appreciating was politics is actually like in a proportional representation system. It also explains why you think it would be more divisive; parties would need to cooperate in a PR system in order to pass legislation, that's less divisive. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation, borne out of first past the post. Having two bitterly opposed camps for decades or centuries causes polarization, not moderation. Your point about seats not being safe is odd. US Congress incumbency rates are over 90%.

cturner 13y ago
I should have wored the safe seats thing more effectively, but I stand by the point. When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. The game-theory around this is fairly clear-cut: you need to be careful not to be a pain in the ass in most single-member electorates, whereas in PR it is often an advantage. Frequently in PR your main competition is for party selection rather than election. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation The US lower house is a poor example of single-member electorates: * gerrymandering in places * FPTP system rather than preferential. * non-compulsory voting The good examples of non-PR are some of the Australian lower-house systems - rare examples of compulsory voting. This means members need to be extra-careful about not pissing people off, even people who generally don't pay much attention to politics. Contrast this to the culture in FPP systems like the US or UK where you need to "get the base out" on voting day. Within that you can go shopping for the preferential system you're looking for (e.g. AV - Victoria, optional - NSW, compulsory - federal) Like the US, Australian electorates tend to be retained. But the political culture discourages divisive behaviour by members who aren't in safe seats. And it's fairly common that when there is a rabble-raiser member, an independent will emerge and turf them out at the next election. The preferential system enables that.
- jellicle 13y ago
  > When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to cater to a plurality of the voters in your district. You very specifically do not and should not "govern for all". Out of a U.S. population of 313 million, you should govern for a group of perhaps 50,000 (less, really) people in your district - the only ones capable of voting you out of office. The U.S. has a huge number of extraordinarily radical and pain-in-the-ass representatives - over a quarter of the U.S. House is currently trying to force the country to default on its debts, because those are the views of the pertinent slice of their individual electorates. You seem basically to be upset at the idea that any politician might exist with any sort of radical-to-you views. You seem to prefer stultifying politics, where a few rich white men meet together over brandy and decide what's going to happen, and everyone follows along nicely. That preference is not shared by everyone, or even most people. PR allows views with wide but shallow representation to get represented in government, and that's considered a good thing by most people.

cturner 13y ago

I should have wored the safe seats thing more effectively, but I stand by the point. When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. The game-theory around this is fairly clear-cut: you need to be careful not to be a pain in the ass in most single-member electorates, whereas in PR it is often an advantage. Frequently in PR your main competition is for party selection rather than election. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation The US lower house is a poor example of single-member electorates: * gerrymandering in places * FPTP system rather than preferential. * non-compulsory voting The good examples of non-PR are some of the Australian lower-house systems - rare examples of compulsory voting. This means members need to be extra-careful about not pissing people off, even people who generally don't pay much attention to politics. Contrast this to the culture in FPP systems like the US or UK where you need to "get the base out" on voting day. Within that you can go shopping for the preferential system you're looking for (e.g. AV - Victoria, optional - NSW, compulsory - federal) Like the US, Australian electorates tend to be retained. But the political culture discourages divisive behaviour by members who aren't in safe seats. And it's fairly common that when there is a rabble-raiser member, an independent will emerge and turf them out at the next election. The preferential system enables that.

jellicle 13y ago
> When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to cater to a plurality of the voters in your district. You very specifically do not and should not "govern for all". Out of a U.S. population of 313 million, you should govern for a group of perhaps 50,000 (less, really) people in your district - the only ones capable of voting you out of office. The U.S. has a huge number of extraordinarily radical and pain-in-the-ass representatives - over a quarter of the U.S. House is currently trying to force the country to default on its debts, because those are the views of the pertinent slice of their individual electorates. You seem basically to be upset at the idea that any politician might exist with any sort of radical-to-you views. You seem to prefer stultifying politics, where a few rich white men meet together over brandy and decide what's going to happen, and everyone follows along nicely. That preference is not shared by everyone, or even most people. PR allows views with wide but shallow representation to get represented in government, and that's considered a good thing by most people.