[EM] [Election-Methods] [english 94%] PR favoring racialminorities

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:

>> Jobst Heitzig said:
>>> It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally  
>>> when
>>> still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
>
>> raphfrk replied
>> I disagree.  The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
>> coalition re-organisation.
>
> I also disagree, but for a different reason and even when there is  
> no chance at all of on-the-fly coalition re-organisation.  A
> minority of 49% can be very effective in holding the majority to  
> account and ensuring that the majority's proposals and decisions
> are subject to public scrutiny.  Here in Scotland, our 32 local  
> authority councils were all elected from single-member wards (small
> electoral districts) by FPTP.  We had become used to one-party  
> states, like Glasgow City Council where one party could hold 74 out
> of 79 seats for just 49.6% of the votes city-wide, or Midlothian  
> Council where one party held 17 of the 18 seats with just 46% of
> the votes.  When such distorted one-party rule persists for several  
> decades the political effects are very serious.  But we put an
> end to that in May 2007 when we elected all our councillors by STV- 
> PR.  Now there is effective opposition and scrutiny in every
> council and the minority voices are heard.

We see something like that in my local five-member school district (on  
the California coast hard by Silicon Valley). The electorate is  
factionalized (never mind the issues) and there's a consistent 55-60%  
majority that elects all five members. As a consequence, the board can  
hold closed meetings with impunity. STV-PR (these are nonpartisan  
elections, so party lists are out) would solve the problem nicely.  
(Full disclosure: I ran for the board a few years ago, losing  
respectably.)

I'm a little skeptical of supermajority or consensus systems, which  
can easily lead to paralysis if an sufficient minority simply refuses  
to compromise. The California state budget rules are a case in point;  
a 2/3 majority is required in both legislative houses to pass a  
budget. The result is a perennial budget stalemate.