We have always been a country that preaches fairness, inclusion, equal representation, and so on, yet the major political system running this country does not align with these same beliefs and values. The current SMDP system is wrought with flaws. Two dominating parties dictate policies that marginalize others and disenfranchise those who cannot participate in politics because the electoral process does not support them. Adolino and Blake discuss the "prospects for such parties are so poor, support for small parties generally declines over time or never emerges in countries using SMDP systems" (pp. 59-60). Is it right that the views of voters are, over time, being edged out simply because legislators favor a two-party system?
A recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08legislature.html?_r=1&emc=eta1) discusses the potentially game changing effects that this year's redistricting may have on the 2012 elections. Nowhere does it mention the wants or desires of voters, in fact, it claims that state officials will essentially be telling voters who to vote for based simply on their geographic location. Who wants to waste a vote if the rest of the neighborhood is going to elect the other guy? That mentality is why we should adopt proportional voting. Adolino and Blake state "PR systems results in their being rated as more equitable and representative than SMDP systems…a wider array of ideological positions [will be] represented in the legislature…[r]ather than excluding smaller interests from political institutions, PR systems are designed to ensure their inclusion" (p. 61). Are these not the tenants that this country was founded on?
By allowing everyone an equal chance to participate in government we would alleviate many of the conflicts and corruption that arises out of our political process. While one of the criticisms of PR is the possibility of multi-party coalitions forming to obstruct the policy-making process the lack of radical and extreme groups in our political system makes this threat impractical. The two dominant parties now tend to make moderate policy decisions and, in fact, agree on many issues. I do not see the problems facing Italy's government being the same in the US. Potentially, PR could result in political stalemates on issues that attract a wide range of views like the environment and healthcare. Bringing more marginalized groups into the mix, however politically refreshing, introduce a different set of priorities to the political and institutional agendas. Despite the problems that PR might bring, it would also empower citizens to take back their government.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Week 4. Multi-member districts and proportional voting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Lindsey, I appreciate your comments about the need for representation of the marginalized. However, I disagree with the idea that we were always a country that valued equal representation. Our Constitution was framed by Federalists, who inherently did not believe that the people could make decisions about government. That was why we were to elect those that were educated and considered "experts" to represent our interests. And in this Federalist system, majority wins. Also, if you look at the structure of the legislature, the Federalists did not trust those elected either, because there was a check put in place, i.e. the Senate, to ensure bills did NOT pass easily, which ensured the status quo and stability.
ReplyDeleteSo...no. This system was never based on direct input of the people into government policy making. But over time that has changed as we have organized and formed interest groups. But in my opinion, it's still not good enough and leaves out the voices of many.
Also about your comment regarding the lack of extreme groups in our political system...I actually think things would change, Lindsey, if we introduced PR in gov't. We do have those groups now...I tried counting them...there were at least 50 minority parties, including the Marijuana Party, the Pirate Party, and the Reformed Nazi Party. We are a land of diversity. If we only required 4% for a party to get on a ballot & be included in the legislature, don't you think that the reverse would happen? More parties would mobilize, because they wouldn't need a majority vote anymore.
So yes, i think the same would happen with the coalition governments in Italy...as it already happens now with just our simple two parties in the U.S.
I do agree with you that something needs to change, so that everyone's voices are heard...an Anti-Federalist ideal that we should re-examine.