Among modern, established democracies, proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government, and public participation with government. Its as close to a panacea for effective democracy as you could have -- which isn't surprising, proportionality of representation is a pretty direct measure of the extent to which a government is democratic.
> It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad).
Any government in a system with a diversity of viewpoints is either going to be minoritarian or coalition based; winner take all tends to majority-of-a-majority -- which can be minoritarian -- and, whether it is that or not, tends also to involve non-overt coalition building in structuring big-tent parties. PR systems tend to be more likely to be actually majoritarian, and tend to feature explicit -- and thus more accountable -- coalition building. It doesn't lead to "fragmented" government by any meaningful measures.
Itssometimes portrayed as leading to less stable government, because in parliamentary systems its associated with more rapid turnover of government administrations/cabinets, but by another measure, it leads to more stable government, as while there is more frequent turnover of cabinets, there is more continuity between successive governments/cabinets, and more continuity in governments/cabinets over time.
> It also privileges party over individual candidates (which can be good or bad, but those who dislike partisanship would certainly disapprove).
Certain methods of achieving proportionality (e.g., party list systems) may do so; candidate-centered election methods with rules that produce proportional results (like single transferrable vote in small multimember districts) do not. In fact, such systems would do the opposite compared to the status quo system in the US, emphasizing individual candidates over party by offering more competition, even in general elections, between individual candidates even in districts with a clear majority for a single party.
> Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well.
Constitutional provisions for Presidential rule-by-decree had a lot to do with that, PR -- or even the particular form of PR used by the Weimar Republic -- well, if you want to argue that that was responsible for something, then go ahead and make that argument.
When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has, perhaps that statement could be made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...
Other than perhaps the Scandinavian countries, that's not exactly a list that makes one optimistic about stability.
Edit: "Constitutional provisions for Presidential rule-by-decree had a lot to do with that, PR -- or even the particular form of PR used by the Weimar Republic -- well, if you want to argue that that was responsible for something, then go ahead and make that argument."
See my response to the other poster below. The PR system (and the myriad of squabbling parties produced by it) led to there being no effective government for two subsequent parliamentary elections.
Y Norway
Y Australia
Y Switzerland
Y Netherlands
United States
Y Germany
Y New Zealand
Canada
Singapore
Y Denmark
Y Ireland
Y Sweden
Y Iceland
United Kingdom
Y Hong Kong
South Korea
Japan
Y Liechtenstein
Y Israel
France> Which of them would you not consider a stable government?
Whoa, that's some strawman. The standard we're looking to prove is "proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government".
Whoa, that's some strawman.
No. The person who was being replied to specifically wrote about stability.
"Has" up to what date? Is there some set length of time they have to surpass? Or are you suggesting the US can't learn anything from other countries until after it collapses and is outlived? Seems like a moot point by then.
That's a lovely artificial requirement you've made there. I assume this means that you think the US system of government is inferior to the UK system of government, since longevity is apparently the only requirement?
And apparently having an extremely bloody secession war counts as 'stability'? Or being at war with your neighbours for most of the first half of your life? The US lost 50% more people fighting itself than when fighting the Axis in WWII a century later.
Wanting a system of government with proven stability is not a "straw man".
"I assume this means that you think the US system of government is inferior to the UK system of government"
The UK doesn't have PR either. And no, it means nothing of the sort. My argument is that PR tends to be unstable, not that the US system is the only possible stable system.
Still, I like you completely sidestepped the question of how 'stability' matches up with having a civil war that was one of the bloodiest in history. You're not actually interested in finding the best form of government; you're only interested in defending your own.
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. Not going to work.
Stability isn't the only goal, but it's an important one.
"Still, I like you completely sidestepped the question of how 'stability' matches up with having a civil war that was one of the bloodiest in history.
Britain had a nasty civil war also.
"You're not actually interested in finding the best form of government; "
No, because I don't believe that there is a "best" form of government. Attempting to immanentize the eschaton usually (always) winds up with a few million people dead.
I'm interested in avoiding forms of government that are demonstrably bad, based on past performance.
Pr also gives to much power fringe party's eg Germany totally abandoning nukes to keep the 1 or 2 greens onside to prop up Angela's government.
Abandoning nuclear energy is a widely accepted move by the majority of the population and across political parties. If anything the people wanting to keep nuclear energy, are in a minority. A minority that is not willing to risk actually advocating for nuclear energy.
And I bet until last week the German "consumer" loved diesel powered cars (and the tax benefits) and ignored the down sides of targeting CO2 vs NOX
The phase out of nuclear power isn't the result of a coalition trying to appease a radical fringe component. It's broadly reflective of public will in Germany.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries...
Even if it were a reason, reversing again on this topic and not abandoning nuclear power would have no impact on prices by itself. New nuclear plants would have to be built which would take decades, even if you could find locations where such a plant would be tolerated.
Is the causal relationship really that proportional representation drives political representation and satisfaction?
Democracies with a high level of political participation may be likelier to adopt experiments like proportional representation...and then public satisfaction is driven by the high level and effectiveness of political participation.
Having lived in Italy, I am not that impressed by the politics there, and think that proportional representation with party lists is part of the problem.
I think STV is pretty interesting, but producing one winner is no bad thing either. Of course, as per Arrow, nothing is perfect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
Already the case.
It also privileges party over individual candidates
Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation.
Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well.
No, that is not the point. Hitler eating sugar had nothing to do with his government. Proportional representation did. That's how he came to power. Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_ch...
"Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had not resulted in the formation of a majority government."
They had large number of splinter parties, all of whom hated each other's guts, and which were unable to form an effective government. The Nazis were not a majority (no one was), but were a large, well-disciplined bloc. The rest is, as they say, history.
>Distinction without a difference. Even if the focus is on the candidates, they're all firmly partisan with little variation.
Does it matter whether the politicians are partisans unified in party goals? It seems that in the USA, politicians frequently go against their own parties, relative to other countries. Is partisanship in favour of non-party aligned interest groups part of what you perceive as a problem? Please describe a non-partisan politician, party, or system.
Lastly, I think we can all agree that a single anecdote does not make the case for or against the PR system, though it does show that PR is not a sufficient condition for stable and everlasting democracy.
Ironically, I suspect SuperPACs are contributing to the decay of Republican cohesion -- the party has lost its strong control over re-election. At this point the only thing Republicans in Congress can agree upon is that they dislike anything they suspect a Democrat -- especially the President -- of liking.
As for Democrats, Will Roger's famous quote is something like "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Just look at the fixes the German Federal Republic put into place in 1949. That turns out to work quite well, allowing party plurality while still maintaining effective coalitions.
Germany and New Zealand use MMR in some of their elections.
The stalemate of the past two terms in the US doesn't say much for winner-takes-all.
> It also privileges party over individual candidates
Only depending on the proportional rep type. But again, in the US, there are only two parties. Very rarely you might glimpse an independent, but they mean nothing in the overall political landscape. There is no functional way for another party to rise in the current political system in the US - so party is inherently privileged over individuals.
> Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well.
Ah, you're just trolling.
Edit: chock full of nazis, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...
You think it's bad with two parties who can't agree on anything? Try twenty parties who can't agree on anything.
"Ah, you're just trolling."
No, I certainly am not trolling. The multitude of parties in the Weimar Republic, which could not form an effective government for two entire election cycles, were directly responsible for Hitler's rise to power.
What, multipolar politics, like modern Germany or Sweden or Australia? Wealthy, socially progressive countries with high standards of living?
You're just spreading FUD. PR was one of a great many factors involved in the rise of Hitler, but keep in mind that the US system also let a president get elected that didn't win the popular vote, who then went on to destroy a foreign country to drum up domestic political support. Literally hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq to make Bush more popular in the US, despite Iraq having nothing to do with threats to the US. But it would be stupid to say that the US electoral system was directly responsible for the Iraqi bloodbath.
And as I say in the other comment, there are a shitload of countries using PR that aren't fascists.
Modern Germany does not have PR. For good reason.
" PR was one of a great many factors involved in the rise of Hitler, but keep in mind that the US system also let a president get elected that didn't win the popular vote"
The U.S. President has never been elected by popular vote. Again, for good reason. Feature, not bug.
"Sees the light"? Proportional representation is far from a panacea. It tends to lead to a fragmented government (which is usually bad). It also privileges party over individual candidates (which can be good or bad, but those who dislike partisanship would certainly disapprove). There are other factors at play as well.
Most (in)famously, the Weimar Republic used PR. That didn't end well.