Proportional Representation (Was Re: la revolution)

Paul Henry Rosenberg rad at gte.net
Mon Aug 24 19:38:01 PDT 1998


Brad De Long wrote:


> >On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
> >
> >> why do you think that proportional representation is more conducive to
> >> social democracy than first past the post?
> >
> >Because PR systems are simply more democratic, and when people actually
> >bother to go out and vote, it's possible to organize significant Left
> >majorities. The reason is simple: first-past-the-post means, 51% takes the
> >cake. You get a situation where, on a national level, even a minority of
> >the popular vote can sweep to total electoral victory. With PR, 5% of the
> >votes gets 5% of the seats, so small and medium-size parties can flourish.
> >They get political airtime, people see a direct result for their vote, and
> >consequently you can mobilize folks to fight capital's agenda in a serious
> >way.
>
> It is a lot more complicated than that...

Yes, it is. There's a whole literature out there on it.

But if we set aside empirical considerations for a moment and focus on the bare-bones of theory--not theory as in conjecture, but theory as in how it works--something astonishing comes into focus: ONLY proportional representation allows for majority rule. Under first-past-the-post, at BEST a legislative majority representing barely over 25% of voters possess ALL the legislative power -- unless one requires super-majorities (as with cloture in the Senate, etc.) This is because one needs only 50%+1 votes (less if third parties nibble away at the edges, allowing, say, a 45% plurality to elect) in 50%+1 of the districts.

Furthermore, not only is EVERYONE who votes for a losing candidate throwing away their vote, but everyone over 50%+1 of those voting for a winner are casting a vote that MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, that is, in effect, wasted.

Under proportional representation, virtually everyone can be represented. 10%, 5%, even fewer wasted votes are possible, compared to 50%-1.

Now, with this as the theoretical framework, it's obvious that there's a much greater OBJECTIVE sense that one's vote matters. And, indeed, those who use proportional representation have higher levels of voter participation.

Put simply, proportional representation is a MUCH more democratic system, and the ONLY representative system that allows for majority rule.

Those interested in a fuller treatment, written for a mainstream audience, can check out "Something to Vote for: Real Representation", an article I wrote for the Christian Science Monitor, at http://home1.gte.net/rad/opeds/pr_csm.htm.

-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net

"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list