4 ms·
It's not obvious to me that multi-member district schemes and coalition governments have produced anything significantly different than what we have. I mean, if
by jessedhillon 13y ago
It's not obvious to me that multi-member district schemes and coalition governments have produced anything significantly different than what we have. I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, I'm just not sure you're paying attention.
Within the same party you can have representatives who are both for and against nearly every important issue! In the UK they need to form a coalition (sometimes) to run the government, but when they have that coalition, pretty much the only things which get voted on are those which are guaranteed to pass. Or if you want real crazy, go look at 2003~2007 Israel, where coalitions would need to be formed from several radically different parties.
I don't see any evidence that requisite inclusion of diverse stakeholders lead to better outcomes for the public.
- ronaldx 13y ago> I mean, if you think we (the US) have a severely polarized party alignment, Oh! I absolutely don't think that. The two parties in a two-party system (US; UK normally) are often poorly distinguished, straddling two sides of a dividing line but essentially at the same point. This is even worse for the franchise as voters don't have a real choice at all: just the illusion of one.