[EM] Voice in government argument

[LAYTON Craig]

Do I understand you to mean that the government's argument is aimed at
encouraging voters in regional areas to vote for their candidates, so that
when they win government, there will be a strong regional presence in that
government?

If so, I agree, it is something of a corruption.  I've not heard this kind
of argument before, but there is something analogous here.  In Australia,
voters are highly parochial as well as highly apathetic (work that one
out!).  We actually have a three party system, but the parties are of
significantly differing strengths.  The two smaller conservative parties are
in constant coalition, so that they act as a single party (even in
opposition).  One is a rural based party, who only run candidates in rural
and country areas, and win most of the seats there, and the other is an
economically rationalist urban party, who run candidates in big cities and
towns (they very rarely run candidates against one another).  At election
time, they campaign separately, so that the small rural party (polls 8-15%
nationally) can convince voters to have a "rural voice" in government, with
a separate party identity to boot.  Of course, when the coalition wins, they
just become a single party again, and pursue the larger (urban) party's
agenda.

What makes things worse for democracy is that the coalition often wins with
less than 50% of the two party preferred vote, because their supporters are
geographically localised, while the larger party often gets more than 50% of
the two party preferred vote and loses, because it has support over the
whole country.

It works so well that the large social democratic party (Labor) has begun to
split itself into a second party, to better contest country seats (Country
Labor) and profit from the dissatisfaction of regional voters with the
tyranny of the city folk (with 70-80% of our population living in major
cities, this sentiment is especially vehment in Australia).

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Cretney [mailto:bcretney at postmark.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2000 11:23
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: [EM] Voice in government argument

A general election is currently underway for the Federal government in
Canada.  During these elections, the government often argues outside
Ontario (the largest province) that voters would be wise to elect a
government members for their constituency.  This, it is argued, will
give a stronger "voice in government", and likely increase the
benefits the government gives to that constituency and region.

I consider this something of a corruption, and I wonder to what
extent it is prevalent in other countries, and under other electoral
systems.  Does anyone have any comment on the relation between this
kind of thing and the electoral system?  It seems to be generally
accepted practice in Canada.  How about elsewhere?

---
Blake Cretney