[EM] Why proportional elections - Power arguments needed (Czech green party)

[Jonathan Lundell]

On May 19, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Juho wrote:

> - Maybe there is no need to defend proportional representation. Proportional representation should in principle be taken as granted since that is the way the whole country operates.

It's worth keeping in mind that a majority faction has a built-in incentive to prefer majority-take-all to PR (and this has played a role in the repeal of PR in some places--eg New York City). Depending on the culture of the overall group, it may be impolite to put this reason on the table, but surely it must influence opinion.

> 
> - One approach to this question is to say that the already used method is already a serious attempt to implement proportional representation but that it is not good enough and does not meet the standards that are generally used in proportional systems.
> 
> - I think practically all political systems have a representative body that is in some sense proportional. Governments may be majoritarian but usually governments are not the only representative bodies.
> 
> - It very common that the largest groupings (that currently have the power) don't want to distribute power any more than they have to, in any political system. But maybe also they agree that reasonable level of proportionality is what the party wants. And then the question is if the current method is bad enough to be upgraded.
> 
> - You mentioned that some people might leave the party. They could also well establish a competing party. Since your party is small it can not afford fragmentation. A better strategy would be to collect all the similar minded people from all greenish segments of the society together and that way gain more weight. This means that all segments need to be respected and be represented.

This is a possible counterargument to the majority-take-all argument above--possible the best one.

> 
> - You mentioned earlier that the first vice president should come from a different grouping than the president. If people agree with this, then they should agree that similar principles should apply also to the rest of the council.

As a historical note, the US Constitution originally had a rather convoluted scheme for electing the president and VP (even more convoluted than the present scheme, that is). The fact that it could (and did, in 1796) result in the P & VP being from opposing parties was one of the reasons for the 12th amendment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.

> 
> - If the members will decide, then they may like the fact that proportional representation means that higher number of them will have some of their favourites in the council.
> 
> - You could also explain why the current system does not work. (But be constructive and not destructive.:-)
> 
> - The first practical example in my mind is one where in a good council all the imagined groupings will have their representative in the council while in a bad council, that could be elected with the current method, things would not look as rosy.
> 
> - A working demo may also interest some people. Maybe better focus on some imaginary situation first and not directly on how the new method would change the current leadership to something better :-).