Dems (the system sucks!)

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 02:12 PM 5/3/99 -0400, kelley wrote:
>
>>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.  not even to
>mention that it's entirely unclear to me that minority concerns are even
>unitary.  oh and are women a 'minority' concern here?  just curious.

I used the term "minority" in a generic sense, denoting any more-or-less
organized interest group that is in a numerical minority.  

Of course, I am not suggesting that proportional representation (PR) is a
panacea for political inclusion - but such an inclusion at least has a
chance under PR - but it does not stand one under the winner takes all
system.  This is so, because the majoritarian system is susceptible to what
some analysts call the "median voter" phenomenon - that is an expectation
that voters would oppose political support for 'special interest" groups.
As a result, political representation based on the majority rule seeks the
lowest common denominator while exluding all special interests.  Especially
that open support for special interest makes that party susceptible for
negative campaigning, encouraged by a two-party system.

Under the PR rule, however, even a small minority group can count, because
its votes can expand a party's share of power.  Another way of thinking
about it is the marginal utility of votes according to th elaw of
diminishing returns.  That utility is much greater for a relatively small
party than for a large one that needs only 51% of the votes to win.

Wojtek