I'm for proportional representation, too. Not just for the reasons posted here, but also because I think it would do more than anything else to lessen the role of money and negative advertising during campaigns-- as Paul Rosenberg's article points out.
And also because it will help break up our current Republican and Democratic Party elites. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the outcome will be what everyone on this list will want to see. We currently have a Republican Party which looks out for the rich and their corporate interests while mostly paying lip service to right-wing social issues. The Democratic Party defends a liberal agenda on social issues while neglecting the economic needs of the poor and working class.
If the political party structure really approximated what polling data indicates that Americans want, we'd have at least four parties: 1) a Liberal party of leftist social positions and laissez-faire economics. 2) a Right-wing party pursuing a reactionary economic AND social agenda 3) a Leftist party of progressives on all issues and 4) a pro-labor party which would, at best, be indifferent to progressive social issues and, at worst, hostile to them.
I'm willing to chance that. But if this were national, then for every Green Party rep elected, we'll probably have to put up with a dozen versions of Louise Day Hicks, who won elections in Boston for the school board and Congress with only 40% of the vote.
In other words, Proportional Represntaion would give us a legislature which more accurately represents the population. That's a mixed blessing.
James
-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Dennis R Redmond <dredmond at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> Subject: Re: Proportional Representation (Was Re: la revolution) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Size: 2199 URL: <../attachments/19980825/0841c200/attachment.eml>