PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone]

[Bill Lewis Clark]

James Gilmour wrote:

> I thought the purpose of holding public elections for state
> assemblies and city councils was to obtain representation for
> people, not patches of land defined by geography.

Nope.  A city council governs a particular geographic region, and only
coincidentally the people in it.  State assemblies govern states.

At least, that's the most common view, here in the states.  PR is
definitely gaining ground, but it has a lot of resistance to overcome. 
Geographic representation is built right into our constitution.

> So Old Sarum would keep its two MPs?  That not old-fashioned  -  it's
> unbelievable!

No more unbelievable than the fact that Wyoming -- which has a population
less than 1/68th that of California -- gets to keep its two US Sentators. 
Or the fact that Washington, D.C. gets to keep its three electoral college
votes.

Although... after looking it up, it seems Old Sarum is a lone castle, or
ruins of a castle, or something like that?

Okay, I take it back then.  I had the US in mind when I said that, and our
representation has always been more tied to geography than royalty issues.
 I think districts should be drawn up in a fair and reasonable
*geographic* manner (equal size districts, counties, something like that)
and *then* there should be no more redistricting.  Ever.

-Bill Clark

-- 
Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004
http://www.kucinich.us/