> >2. Proportional system makes partiers more responsive to minority concerns.
> >It is so, because even a small number of votes transates into a political
> >gain - a greater number of seats in the parliament.
>
> given that the political structure of the major players who represent
> minority interests is already largely shaped by and mirrors the operative
> dynamics of the dominant parties, i'm wondering just how much these
> parties are going to be more responsive to minority concerns.
This was a primary concern that lead Lani Guinier to first consider the idea of proportional representation (along with local legislative supermajority rule). She was concerned that the whole thrust of the civil rights movement in electoral politics had ended up degenerating into efforts to elect authentic black representatives from single member districts, and that among other things this eviscerated the dynamic which had invogorated the civil rights movement in the first place.
Whether or not proportional representation can deliver, she develops a strong argument that it has far more possibilities in this direction, and that it provides a far greater degree of consistency between the intent of the Constitution originally, the Civil War Amendments, a wide range of democratic theorists, the civil rights movement, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and subsequent amendments).
Her writrings can be found in somewhat abbreviated form in _The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative_ or in complete form in various law journals. The two most important articles in this regard are "The Triumph of Tokenism: The Voting Rights Act and the Theory of Black Electoral Success" and "No Two Seats: The Elusive Quest For Political Equality" (sorry, I don't have the cites at hand).
> not even to mention that it's entirely unclear to me that
> minority concerns are even unitary.
No, of course they're not. What proportional representation allows -- and in many cases encourages -- is the kind of polictical dynamic in which a greater degree of autonomous integration of political aims from below can take place. It's important to note that some forms of PR are far more conducive to this than others.
Furthermore, PR can provide a powerful means for coalitions to form organicaly. Ultimately it appeals to an electorate of like minds rather than like bodies. Naturally, there's a condsiderable intersection where people have suffered similar forms of political opression and neglect due to their bodily identity, but PR allows for a process of broadening to develop which is naturally stymied in non-PR systems with single-member districts.
> oh and are women a 'minority' concern here?
Yes, indeed!
(1) Women fare MUCH better as candidates under proportional representation. For example, in Germany, which has a mixed system, far more women are elected via PR than as direct geographically-based representatives.
(2) Such women candidates are much better positioned to function as true representatives of women's issues, concerns and values, since they can gain election and relection based solely on women's votes -- whatver surplus of male voters who support such candidates can help expand their coalition base, but by no means constitutes a veto, as it would under a non-PR system.
> just curious.
Always a good idea.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"