>Various groups do think alike, and although their shared beliefs _might_ be
>based on identity, they certainly don't have to be.
the assumption is that it is based on shared identity, that's the point.
empirically, i don't think you can make the case that groups will think alike. you may see voting alike --however that has to do with a lot mre than merely *thinking* alike. a host of factors contribute to voting the same that don't necessarily have anything to do with identity or shared experiences and may even be the result of rather unsavory practices.
but again, no answer to the question of women? why do you suppose that is?
> The main point is that
>blocs of voters agree on how to implement social policy on a range of
>issues. Even if all ethnic minorities were hopelessly fractured
>politically, PR would still be a good idea since it would allow (ethnically
>diverse) political minorities to have a much more representative voice in
> >not even to mention that it seems a ridiculously divisive move given the
> >backlash politics we're dealing with.
>The opposite could be argued. As the article Art McGee posted to the list
>suggested, PR could reduce divisiveness by focusing more attention on the
>merits of various policy issues, as opposed to the silly and
>counterproductive "death penalty = tough on crime" confrontational
>soundbyte politics we see now.
i doubt that. it's not that i have a problem with it, but i agree with john, this is a band aid on gangrene. the problems are systemically rooted.
>Besides, I suspect race and class divisions, historical considerations,
>etc., are much better predictors of social divisiveness than the electoral
>system. And it certainly isn't empirically obvious that countries with PR
>systems suffer from a greater degree of social conflict than countries with