Proportionality in perspective

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Cretney wrote in part-

One point you mention is "locality of representation." 
Leaving aside the issues of proportionality, and list vs.
individual systems, I would argue that locality of
representation is actually a bad thing, and it certainly
doesn't make sense to compromise some other standard in
pursuit of it.
---
D- The current regime of single member districts automatically produces circa 
25 percent ANTI-democratic minority rule (U.S.A. House of Representatives, 
every house of every State legislature in the U.S.A., U.K. House of Commons, 
Canada House of Commons).  

Technically, a plurality of the votes in a bare majority of the districts for 
control by one party or roughly 1/2 the votes in 1/2 the districts = circa 
1/4 of the votes.

In the U.S.A. it is much worse since there are plurality winners in primary 
elections in 40 States -- top 2 runoff primaries in 10 States.

De facto result- when there is no incumbent, the new person gets nominated by 
circa 10 percent of the total voters (i.e. is chosen de facto by various 
special interest gangs) -- circa 40 percent of the voters in the party having 
circa 60 percent of the total primary votes which is circa 40 percent of all 
voters.

With 3 or more strong parties (as in the U.K. and Canada), the minority rule 
math is worse.

Result of the above---- the very long term business- as- usual evil and 
corruption in each of the above governments (especially in the tax and spend 
laws).

Thus, ANY sort of half way decent proportional representation method would 
make a world of difference.