The election of smaller parties gives rise to the principal objection to PR systems, that they almost always result in coalition governments. Supporters of PR see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties to form a coalition at the centre of the political spectrum, and so leading to continuity and stability. Opponents counter that with many policies compromise is not possible (for example funding a new stealth bomber, or leaving the EU). Neither can many policies be easily positioned on the left-right spectrum (for example, the environment). So policies are horse-traded during coalition formation, with the consequence that voters have no way of knowing which policies will be pursued by the government they elect; voters have less influence on governments. Also, coalitions do not necessarily form at the centre, and small parties can have excessive influence, supplying a coalition with a majority only on condition that a policy or policies favoured by few voters is adopted. Most importantly, the ability of voters to vote a party in disfavour out of power is curtailed.All these disadvantages, the PR opponents contend, are avoided by two-party plurality systems. Coalitions are rare; the two dominant parties necessarily compete at the centre for votes, so that governments are more reliably moderate; the strong opposition necessary for proper scrutiny of government is assured; and governments remain sensitive to public sentiment because they can be, and are, regularly voted out of power. However, the US experience shows that this is not necessarily so, and that a two-party system can result in a "drift to extremes", hollowing out the centre, or, at least, in one party drifting to an extreme.Nevertheless, on average, compared to countries using plurality systems, governments elected with PR accord more closely with the median voter and the citizens are more content with democracy.(source)
Burning pockets smell bad.
Don't forget to make sure you emptied their pockets before burning them at the stake.
With the elevation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Pope, we've reverted to our recently ancient argument: What matters more, communism or individual freedom?
He's in the communism camp -- because his countrymen were such bastards!
but I expect him to be killed in Egypt
He was not.
As for Ersi, Barulheira and Krake, all of you are wrong.None of you are Catholic, none of you knows what you're talking about.The Pope needs no defense from you.
BTW: "reprentation" is a technical term...
I'm not surprised, no one here noticed...
That if enough people agree than 2+2=5, than it's true?
Does the Pope accept the concept of democracy, pure democracy?
How does the system work?The country of 5.2 million people uses a modified proportional representation system in which 150 MPs in the 169-seat storting are directly elected in Norway's 19 constituencies.The remaining 19 so-called "levelling" seats are then distributed proportionately to parties that clear a 4% vote threshold so their final seat tally in the parliament fairly reflects their share of the national vote.
He was French, you know?
Piaget's theory [...] was first created by the Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980).
When I teach the Constitution, I like to ask theclass this question: "When we elect a representative to Congress,whom does he represent?" Only the occasional European or LatinAmerican student sees the point immediately. The American students,suspecting a trap, are slow to give the obvious answer: He (orshe) represents the people in his district, his "constituency." They docome forward with this answer eventually, at which point I inquire:"'All of the people in his district--including those who voted againsthim?" Yes, of course. And suddenly enlightenment dawns--the realizationthat there is something special about this American assumption.In no other country in the world does the electoral process proceedon any such peculiar assumption. Everywhere else, electedrepresentatives represent mainly their parties and the ideology oftheir parties, which is identified with the "public interest." Only inAmerica is it taken for granted that they ought to represent, first ofall, the economic interests of all of their constituents. This can betaken for granted because it has been assumed for two centurieseconomic condition within the framework of a settled way of lifethan in any ideology or "cause"--or at least expect their politicalrepresentatives to work toward that economic end rather thanexpending too much energy promoting any particular ideology or"cause." Surely the main reason that the socialist idea has been soweak in America is the fact that it necessarily violates this politicalconstitutional assumption.(source)
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 26 queries.