> 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.
In relation to what, a legislature which *doesn't* represent the population? It's not that socialism would break out overnight if we suddenly adopted PR, it's that even the first steps towards economic and social justice are virtually impossible without it. Let's not forget that Clinton was elected by barely 23% of the eligible population, and our so-called Congressional leaders by even less; we're not talking about a limited problem which can be fixed by yet another well-meaning Democrat (aren't they always) or a few token campaign finance reform bills. Rather, the 18th century US electoral system is fundamentally broken; it's up to us to find truly democratic alternatives, and PR or something close to it is an indispensable element of the solution.
-- Dennis