Recently -in the Good News thread- a conversation ensued. (It happens, sometimes… :) )
Shall we here discuss the issues involved?
The idea of
proportional representation requires, at least, a metaphor that is problematical: Is the mixture of urine and water best described as "urine diluted with water" or "water adulterated with urine"? :)
Psychologists have "examined" the
disgust factor… (It's fascinating reading!) But no hard-and-fast conclusions have emerged.
Of course, this metaphor requires the belief that there are better and worse political philosophies… And better and worse government, based upon
something… If you don't believe that, you might as well stop reading now; and refrain from commenting: Your tribe will either win or lose, and that's all you care about anyway!
It's that "something" mentioned above that I'd like to talk about.
Any takers? :)
———————————————————————————————————
The election of smaller parties gives rise to the principal objection to PR systems, that they almost always result in coalition governments.
Supporters of PR see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties to form a coalition at the centre of the political spectrum, and so leading to continuity and stability. Opponents counter that with many policies compromise is not possible (for example funding a new stealth bomber, or leaving the EU). Neither can many policies be easily positioned on the left-right spectrum (for example, the environment). So policies are horse-traded during coalition formation, with the consequence that voters have no way of knowing which policies will be pursued by the government they elect; voters have less influence on governments. Also, coalitions do not necessarily form at the centre, and small parties can have excessive influence, supplying a coalition with a majority only on condition that a policy or policies favoured by few voters is adopted. Most importantly, the ability of voters to vote a party in disfavour out of power is curtailed.
All these disadvantages, the PR opponents contend, are avoided by two-party plurality systems. Coalitions are rare; the two dominant parties necessarily compete at the centre for votes, so that governments are more reliably moderate; the strong opposition necessary for proper scrutiny of government is assured; and governments remain sensitive to public sentiment because they can be, and are, regularly voted out of power. However, the US experience shows that this is not necessarily so, and that a two-party system can result in a "drift to extremes", hollowing out the centre, or, at least, in one party drifting to an extreme.
Nevertheless, on average, compared to countries using plurality systems, governments elected with PR accord more closely with the median voter and the citizens are more content with democracy.
(source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Coalitions))
The idea that Asian Americans would vote as Asian Americans as opposed to whatever their political ideas might be is patently ridiculous provided society doesn't treat them as Asian Americans, but to deny groups of people a voice is similar to denying them freedom of speech. For that I can simply quote John Stuart Mill:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
Representation in the houses of representatives is effectively a formalized discussion of the sort Mill describes about the way in which we should govern a country.
Of course I should let this opinion go if the evidence were against it, but it's clear from your own sources that proportional representation categorically outperforms first past the post.
PS
It's a system for children. :)
What's good for children and women tends to be rather good for adults and men as well.
The idea of proportional representation requires, at least, a metaphor that is problematical: Is the mixture of urine and water best described as "urine diluted with water" or "water adulterated with urine"? :)
[...]
The election of smaller parties gives rise to the principal objection to PR systems, that they almost always result in coalition governments.
Remember the other option: Two-party system. Is the choice between water and urine (you meant that Repubs are urine, right?) a true choice or would it also be nice to have an option of pineapple juice, rye bread, etc.?
Coalition of multiple parties may work or not work. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Proportional representation provides less political stability, but it reflects the country's population better, and that's a good thing. How good exactly it is depends on more factors, such as if the party is allowed to collect all the votes centrally, treat its gained seats as a single sum and distribute it between the party members at the discretion of the party leadership (this is a widespread phenomenon in multi-party countries) or are votes more attached to the person whom people actually voted for. It also depends on the size and nature of the threshold (in most cases it would be probably the best to have no threshold; let the size of the parliament be the only threshold).
My general impression is that politicians in multi-party countries are more capable and willing of genuine cooperation. Filibustering occurs only when party leaders have a long-standing personal enmity or when a party that is viewed as fundamentally suspicious (like "nationalist extremists" in many European countries right now) gains seats in the parliament.
Anyway, what's the use of discussing it with you, Oakdale? You never have your own opinion. You only have the party line. You make every such topic something to bash "liberals" with as if all things in the world were primarily and essentially related to U.S. internal politics.
such as if the party is allowed to collect all the votes centrally, treat its gained seats as a single sum and distribute it between the party members at the discretion of the party leadership (this is a widespread phenomenon in multi-party countries)
If I recall correctly, the Netherlands, Israel and South Africa have the most proportional systems in the world. For the record, I haven't voted for a "list puller" in the past several elections, but for a candidate of my choice.
My general impression is that politicians in multi-party countries are more capable and willing of genuine cooperation. Filibustering occurs only when party leaders have a long-standing personal enmity or when a party that is viewed as fundamentally suspicious (like "nationalist extremists" in many European countries right now) gains seats in the parliament.
For the past few years the PvdA had a ridiculous policy of systematically opposing every proposal by Wilders, even if they agreed with it.
@OakdaleFTL's quote claims they cannot be voted out of power because reasons, but they've been decimated to a measly 9 seats, down from 38. One can hardly take serious an argument that they haven't been punished just because they managed to maintain a few seats in the house.
For the record, I haven't voted for a "list puller" in the past several elections, but for a candidate of my choice.
I meant the next stage after "list pulling": The number of seats obtained by the party are treated as a single sum and the seats are filled by the central decision of the party leader(s) regardless of how many votes the individual members got. Not necessarily the most-voted party member may gain the seat, but best-liked by the party leader(s). This is a cause of general disgust with the political system in Estonia.
I meant the next stage after "list pulling": The number of seats obtained by the party are treated as a single sum and the seats are filled by the central decision of the party leader(s) regardless of how many votes the individual members got.
That sounds pretty ridiculous. The Dutch parliament website has a list of candidates who were voted in by preferential votes: http://www.parlement.com/id/vh8lnhrouwzc/voorkeurstemmen (my own vote contributed to one candidate on that list).
It *is* ridiculous. And reprehensible. That's why everybody hates it. We vote, but if we vote for a party member, the party gets the vote, not the member.
Then there is a constitutional opportunity to vote for "single candidates" (meaning: no party affiliation whatsoever). Such candidates exist occasionally, but they never have any real chance. None such ever gained a seat in the parliament. Anyway, somewhat alleviating to have this theoretical option too.
I appreciate and applaud your thoughtful posts, guys. (I'd not expected such…) Please do continue.
(Pay no attention to ersi's shot in the dark: I'm used to it. That's what he does — like RJ always coming back to blaming the Joos for everything. He'll give you Venn Diagrams to explain why he's right!)
I'll step aside for a while… I'm interested to hear your opinions! (Yes, you too, ersi!)
I long ago bemoaned President Clinton jettisoning Lani Guinier's nomination for the number two post in the Justice Department for civil rights (…including voting rights). She was a respected academic who'd dared to write -in peer-reviewed law journals- about alternative (…other than our first-to-the-post) systems of voting.
Shame on the Republicans who found her unacceptable for such reasons. And shame on the Clinton administration for caving to such obviously silly criticism: She was qualified, and we should have had the conversation she broached and expanded then. It's still important…
While it's true, I don't agree with most of the ideas she wrote about (…I don't recall if she ever said what she herself thought the best system to be…), I think it unreasonable to reject an otherwise qualified candidate simply because they have a history of discussing "unpopular" ideas…
Let me put it differently: Clinton wimped out, as a politician. We're all agreed, Bill Clinton was the politician's politician?! :) (You'll all have plenty of time to make your Trump jokes… For now, relax and try to stay on topic. You might teach me something…
Lord knows, I've still a lot to learn!)
Political parties don't represent the Nation. It's indifferent if the non representation it's proporcional or not.
Although I am so struck on proportional representation and does now occur here in regional parliaments but not national. There was a referendum on that and people stuck to the national first past the post. However there will be places in our world where it has been a failure.
There is a technical, mathematical, idea of a fair election, that can go beyond the traditional political election. For instance there are computer programs in which decision are take by "voting". This is worth pursuing in part because it leaves behind the mindset of what would benefit my favourite faction, to one of understanding the mechanisms of elections and what constitutes a good system, and there is a lot of useful theoretical knowledge to come out of it.
It even has its own intellectually pleasing theorem to go with it, Arrow's impossibility theorem (after the recently dead and massively influential Kenneth Arrow), as described by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem):
In social choice theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_choice_theory), Arrow's impossibility theorem, the general possibility theorem or Arrow's paradox is an impossibility theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_theorem) stating that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_system) voting system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a pre-specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_domain), non-dictatorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-dictatorship), Pareto efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency), and independence of irrelevant alternatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives). The theorem is often cited in discussions of voting theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard%E2%80%93Satterthwaite_theorem).
The theory aside, voting systems can be compared. They are different, they will have different outcome, and they can greatly impact the nature of democracy in a country or an organisation. In particular they are more or less likely to be fair, based on the election criteria (and independent of being
right, i.e. having my candidate winning). The British system, which the US has inherited, underperforms.
To all this we can add politics and pragmatism. People and politicians will prefer systems that will give themselves more power, and will resist changes that could affect that. And there is a lot more than the election system that can affect fairness, like money, incumbent political power, or name. Was the last Russian election free and fair? In many countries much of the electorate vote for individuals unknown to them, and might prefer a candidate whose name they know (e.g. a sports star) to a candidate they don't know, even though the latter might be closer to the voter's likely preference if he or she had been better informed.
The theory aside, voting systems can be compared. They are different, they will have different outcome, and they can greatly impact the nature of democracy in a country or an organisation. In particular they are more or less likely to be fair, based on the election criteria (and independent of being right, i.e. having my candidate winning). The British system, which the US has inherited, underperforms.
It's not too hard to show that the proportional system can be tweaked so that it becomes unfair. But has anyone shown that the first-past-the-post system can be made fair somehow, even theoretically?
But has anyone shown that the first-past-the-post system can be made fair somehow, even theoretically?
I think that an ideal winner takes all is likely still worse than a mediocre proportional system:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ
(Edited to fix embedded video.)
Talk about tyranny of the majority.
:sst: They are losers.
The "democracy" of the bourgeois.
Corrupt everything with no limits, what's important is that money flows.
A very very interesting thread to un-desclosure the "middle classes".
History will have no mercy on such rats.
…and then there's the topic (probably taboo!) of whether "fairness" in voting systems leads to good government and good governance… Surely, there are studies! :)
That's largely circular. If by good governance you mean matters such as better quality of life, increased feeling that you are actually represented by the democratic process, better care of the environment, more privacy, less government waste, lesser income inequality, punishments aimed at decreasing recidivism rather than being punitive, and less military brouhaha, then proportional representation is demonstrably better in the real world than all other alternatives we've tried so far.
However, if your definition of good government is focused more on efficiency of process than on the long-term outcome for the populace, for example, then a well-run despotic regime will always be more efficient. It could therefore even be superior on many of the aforementioned points in the short term (i.e., one despot's lifetime).
Edit: btw, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/es10 contains a good summary of some electoral systems in use.
How can people speak about "proportional representation" about "democratic processes" when oftenly, the biggest representation, abstention, is not even considered at all for determining results?
The day abstention wins an election, with all it's consequences, then there will be finally a democratic process. That day things will start to change.
How can people speak about "proportional representation" about "democratic processes" when oftenly, the biggest representation, abstention, is not even considered at all for determining results?
I'd mention referendums (for the very rare cases they get allowed) which are ignored when the outcome doesn't fit the agenda.
How can people speak about "proportional representation" about "democratic processes" when oftenly, the biggest representation, abstention, is not even considered at all for determining results?
That's precisely the point. In a well-functioning democracy you simply don't see the kind of voter disenfranchisement you're talking about (which would seem to include Portugal about 80%). The United States consistently performs at the lower bounds of an actually functional democracy with about 50% voter turnout for the House of Representatives.
I'd mention referendums (for the very rare cases they get allowed) which are ignored when the outcome doesn't fit the agenda.
Referendums are mostly stupid because your average citizen knows next to nothing about policy and politics. Direct democracy (that which
@OakdaleFTL so aggravatingly likes to call democracy) is therefore not a very good idea. Politicians aren't experts on most subjects either, which is why there are all kinds of (semi-)governmental organizations in place to advise them on the right course of action.
tl;dr Representative democracy sucks, but it's the best we've got.
Politicians aren't experts on most subjects either, which is why there are all kinds of (semi-)governmental organizations in place to advise them on the right course of action.
It's worse.
There all kinds of
(semi-)governmental private institutions with their own interests in place to advise on what they consider the best course of action for
them.
---
BTW, what does "reprentation" mean?
I think that's wildly unfair toward, say, the CBS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_Netherlands).
BTW, what does "reprentation" mean?
They don't teach civics in Germany? :P
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3Zg3eIy.png&hash=217f9a2c58de8cfb3e887c788db7f59a" rel="cached" data-hash="217f9a2c58de8cfb3e887c788db7f59a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/3Zg3eIy.png)
:ko:
Ah, I thought you wanted my opinion on the matter when spelled correctly. :P
While Northern ignorants discuss their pseudo-language, the facts remains the same - The Europe of Citizens is so much ahead of the Europe of political parties.
The rest of the world is an anecdote.
While Northern ignorants discuss their pseudo-language, the facts remains the same - The Europe of Citizens is so much ahead of the Europe of political parties.
The rest of the world is an anecdote. A dangerous anecdote.
I wonder if that is really a positive the basic way Europe is - a basic shambles. Was not meant to be kind of State and anyweay looking at the basic composition makes your assessment even doubtful.
Shouldn't Europe have a proportion of Communists, Fascists, Crypto-capitalists, and (add any other -ists you'd like!) rule over them?
(They actually have: It's called the EU…)
If there are no principles worth fighting for, there is only what Frenzie call the "circular argument." The other side -the one I'm against- says exactly that: There are no principles!
When you focus upon "the process." chances are pretty good that you know — you've already lost the argument. But you may continue winning battles…
Hell, you might win the war!
How does that work out in the real world? Unfortunately, as Keynes quipped: "In the long run, we are all dead."
How many people with children feel that way? It's hard to say, considering the many who'd turn their children into bombs, and thence hamburger…
You choose your principles; and you -at great peril- ignore the plain principles of others.
———————————————————————————————————————
Again, I ask: What is the purpose of government… What do we want?
I doubt the answers to those two questions will be very enlightening. Most of the modern world (that would be Europe, BTW? :) ) has rejected such…, principles, that is. And, so, should be perfectly okay with the Trump presidency: He's their "kinda guy"! (The Art of the Deal, and all that silliness… Didn't it used to be called "Real Politik"?)
In a sense, I see what people who want proportional representation want: A calm, peaceful world; where no one is treated un-fairly.
I'm not opposed to that.
I just see (know…) that that's not how the world works.
And I would like someone to explain to me how "tribal," or racial or ethnic -or even ideological groups - make, when they're given priority- the polity better and the government they support — something other than a "spoils system"…
(And, so, we're back to Frenzie's "circularity". I wish I had the answer… But I can only claim certain principles that I deem paramount. See America's Declaration of Independence and said country's Constitution.)
And, ersi, look up the various dictionary meanings of the word "principle"… Then go out to a bar, get drunk; get into an argument… It'd probably do you good, even if you lost the fight. You've a lot to learn yet.
If there are no principles worth fighting for, there is only what Frenzie call the "circular argument.
The other side -the one I'm against- says exactly that: There are no principle!
Fair representation is not a principle worth living and fighting for?
Ah! For you, the process is the principle… :)
You are maybe right ersi so emigrate!
RJ, would you explain what you mean by a "wider democracy"…?
I do understand that living in America and being brained from childhood Oakdale the idea of 'wider democracy' is a puzzle because you think you have it. You lot are brained from childhood by words such as "democracy" and so on but in practice only limited. There are an awful lot of places with that wider democracy than your two-faced place. Yak about principles but inside the country is a different tale! :hat:
Oh, we manage, RJ… :) You're welcome to your parliamentary system; we'll keep our constitutional republic a bit longer, thank you!
Why keep it Oaky when tens of millions are getting nowhere in it? :down:
Where are they trying to go?
Being so many poor Yanks they cannot afford to go anywhere. ???
They could go to Glasgow, and on the same income live like kings! :) (Well, lairds — at least.)
People enjoy coming here being such a friendly place. :happy:
We aren't such a friendly place. We should be but we aren't.
Mea culpa, vostra culpa.
Who cares in this consumist egoist society.
There's no way to have "representation" when humans lives like insects. First, let's live like human beings at human societies, by humanistic values, by the absolut value of the dignity of the human being, then there wil be no problem about "representations".
I forget, Belfrager, did I post this link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-bees-vs-the-butterflies-the-ecology-of-politics_us_58e50a73e4b09dbd42f3dc4e) before? :)
I still think various societies choose or accept various schemes of government, as they suit them. It's the them part that too many people refuse to acknowledge…
For example, I'd not presume to tell the citizenry of Portugal how to structure their government…
(What we do here is different: We choose to discuss and criticize each other's views — mostly in a friendly manner. When governments do that, it's called "diplomacy," which often leads to war! :) Here, we -at most- stop talking to each other.)
There's no reason I can think of that requires a single best system. But I do still believe that the U.S. constitutional republic is best suited to most Americans… :)
I forget, Belfrager, did I post this link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-bees-vs-the-butterflies-the-ecology-of-politics_us_58e50a73e4b09dbd42f3dc4e) before? :)
A fable indeed... so Republicans sees themselves as... butterflies??? despising the Democrat bees?
I would see them all more as consumerist cockroaches. Never imagined Republicans with such poetic soul... buterflies shooting around, what a cartoon.
Sorry to be a disappointment Belfrager but my younger brother has visited the Algarve in your place and seemed to enjoy it!
Next time he will be arrested.
No more considered an European and as such treated as an Islamic terrorist. :)
Say bye-bye to your brother if he ever visits us again brexit annoying orange man.
Portugal books tourism record
Brits again topped the list of foreign visitors to the country, followed by Germans
Be nice to Anglo-Saxons. :)
Not just Anglo-Saxons but Scots, Ulster folk and Welsh lot too!
Just thought Belfrager dear Popish man that we are now into the marching season so will think about you. Would let you try my regalia on but worried you might have a heart attack.
we are now into the marching season
Boy-o! Has no one told you you live on an island? What are ye? Lemmings?
Portugal books tourism record
Brits again topped the list of foreign visitors to the country, followed by Germans
Be nice to Anglo-Saxons. :)
The plague has arrived...
Use masks and avoid any contact with those foreigner hordes of infectious microbes....
Burn them all, it's a matter of public health.
Burn them all, it's a matter of public health.
Don't forget to make sure you emptied their pockets before burning them at the stake. :)
Burning pockets smell bad.
Burning pockets smell bad.
Pecunia non olet. :)
Don't forget to make sure you emptied their pockets before burning them at the stake. :)
Are you trying to teach the mass to the priest? :devil:
My dear departed brother-in-law was a devout Catholic, who rejected the church because of an egregious lapse by a prelate: While supposedly celebrating Mass, the priest noticed a lad coming a little late to the rite. He -the priest- also noticed that the lad had not dropped coins into the Poor Box… He called him out to the congregation, as he took his seat in the pews, and denigrated him for his lack of "charity" and his poor Christian sentiments.
My brother-in-law knew the lad and his family, and knew what their financial situation was — dire.
He also knew: A vicious and avaricious priest was let preach again; nobody said anything against him. (He went back to whatever diocese he came from… And they probably accepted him back.) That was enough, for him: The Church was a broken institution, he figured.
With the elevation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Pope, we've reverted to our recently ancient argument: What matters more, communism or individual freedom? :(
He's in the communism camp — because his countrymen were such bastards!
Will he learn about other parts of the world? Nah! I'm sorry to say this, but I expect him to be killed in Egypt. If he isn't, it's because al Sisi is a moral and effective ruler…
With the elevation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Pope, we've reverted to our recently ancient argument: What matters more, communism or individual freedom? :(
Is this the question for a church?
Looks like wherever you are, it's you versus liberals. Nothing else going on in your head.
He's in the communism camp — because his countrymen were such bastards!
This is the kind of hasty generalization that scares me.
He's in the communism camp — because his countrymen were such bastards!
If everyone who has bastard coutrymen would be in the communist camp then the whole world would be communist and you'd adore now a communist president.
Fortunately it's not the case and you can relax by simply adoring a dangerous idiot. :)
Oakdale, stop to be such an idiot.
As for Ersi, Barulheira and Krake, all of you are wrong.
None of you are Catholic, none of you knows what you're talking about.
The Pope needs no defense from you.
but I expect him to be killed in Egypt
He was not.
But, hey, he can be at Fátima in Portugal....
I wonder what American Bishops are doing so you say the things you say...
Regarding Popish arrogance - well done and three out of three! :hat:
He was not.
You might have quoted me more fully… I said: "I'm sorry to say this, but I expect him to be killed in Egypt. If he isn't, it's because al Sisi is a moral and effective ruler..."
As for Ersi, Barulheira and Krake, all of you are wrong.
None of you are Catholic, none of you knows what you're talking about.
The Pope needs no defense from you.
Thanks for citing my nickname. However, a little bit of English reading comprehension would tell you that neither one of us three was defending the Pope or anything Catholic at all. We were questioning OakdaleFTL's kind of argumentation.
Whom, in the next post, you called an idiot.
So, to a good measure, you agreed with us. :happy:
BTW: "reprentation" is a technical term… "Representation" is a term that defies definition.
I'm not surprised, no one here noticed…
Does the Pope accept the concept of democracy, pure democracy? That if enough people agree than 2+2=5, than it's true? Sure. He's not smart enough to argue…
The Pontif is woefully inept. (I used the ancient spelling purposely. You can add another "f" if you'd like…)
BTW: "reprentation" is a technical term…
Was that "technical term" coined by you or you can point to a source where it is used?
I'm not surprised, no one here noticed…
And I'm not at all surprised that you didn't notice that at least someone has noticed...Here. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=70d68a69a77e7073e6d940bde4684086&topic=2675.msg71652#msg71652).
That if enough people agree than 2+2=5, than it's true?
For you democracy means: 2+2=5
It tells a lot about
your understanding of democracy. :left:
Try here (https://books.google.com/books?id=tImWSe_JxpYC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=reprentation+(mathematics)&source=bl&ots=L8tU9XyHdW&sig=1TRFj9YiYKGhJFLXp65S5wK_rnY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGhLDdytTTAhVK9WMKHSlyCW0Q6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=reprentation%20(mathematics)&f=false)… (7.4.4)
Or here (https://nrich.maths.org/2588)…
Does the Pope accept the concept of democracy, pure democracy?
Do you suffer from congenit stupidity? since when the Pope has to answer you? since when religions equals to politics? since when God needs to be "democratic"?
Sorry Oakdale but I'm tired of calling you stupid, that's no way to behave between gentlemen.
You disapoint me and I have no more patience for such low intelectual level.
:lol:
I was just gonna nope the hell outta this. -However I can't help but some mild trolling... There's, of course, a Twitter link.
:doh: #reprentation (https://twitter.com/hashtag/reprentation)
Norway's general election: all you need to know (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/10/norways-general-election-all-you-need-to-know)How does the system work?
The country of 5.2 million people uses a modified proportional representation system in which 150 MPs in the 169-seat storting are directly elected in Norway’s 19 constituencies.
The remaining 19 so-called “levelling” seats are then distributed proportionately to parties that clear a 4% vote threshold so their final seat tally in the parliament fairly reflects their share of the national vote.
oakdaleFTL, Meant to say a while ago your initial title was mis-spelled!
This, from RJ! :) The word is a technical term… You're a non-technical person, RJ. (Paiget's epistemology and pedagogy. He was French, you know?)
Piaget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development)?
Can't be him. :P
He was French, you know?
Piaget's theory […] was first created by the Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980).
:angel:
There must have existed a French person called Paiget. (And RJ should know it...)
It's all really quite technical, you see. :left:
Hey, fellows: I'm old and tired! Piaget (who spells his name oddly… :) ) wrote a few books that should be read by anyone who'd appreciate developmental psychology.
The idea that epistemology is gradually acquired shouldn't be controversial; but for Piaget, it would be. He was a scientist and a philosopher. That he advanced our understanding of psychology is undeniable.
Except by those who'd deny everything that doesn't comport with their ideology…
Consider this:
When I teach the Constitution, I like to ask the
class this question: "When we elect a representative to Congress,
whom does he represent?" Only the occasional European or Latin
American student sees the point immediately. The American students,
suspecting a trap, are slow to give the obvious answer: He (or
she) represents the people in his district, his "constituency." They do
come forward with this answer eventually, at which point I inquire:
"'All of the people in his district--including those who voted against
him?" Yes, of course. And suddenly enlightenment dawns--the realization
that there is something special about this American assumption.
In no other country in the world does the electoral process proceed
on any such peculiar assumption. Everywhere else, elected
representatives represent mainly their parties and the ideology of
their parties, which is identified with the "public interest." Only in
America is it taken for granted that they ought to represent, first of
all, the economic interests of all of their constituents. This can be
taken for granted because it has been assumed for two centuries
economic condition within the framework of a settled way of life
than in any ideology or "cause"--or at least expect their political
representatives to work toward that economic end rather than
expending too much energy promoting any particular ideology or
"cause." Surely the main reason that the socialist idea has been so
weak in America is the fact that it necessarily violates this political
constitutional assumption.
(source (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/58e/1a4/d92/58e1a4d928fa4279292406.pdf))
(There may be mishaps in my quoting… But so few bother with close reading that they shouldn't matter.
Howie will fume: America, bad! and some few others will agree. Some will equivocate. But the main point is undeniable: We are different, in our preconceptions and in our aspirations…
(My apologies, to those who were offended that I assumed that a guy writing in French was French… What was I thinking? He, of course, did his research and taught at institutions in Switzerland, the home of the
swizzle-stick — for which we should all be eternally grateful!)
. But the main point is undeniable: We are different, in our preconceptions and in our aspirations...
It's undeniable that
you think you are oh-so different. The ideology of American Exceptionalism, particularly the messianic version of it, makes its adherents completely ridiculous.
In Scotland, Wales, Ulster we have proportional voting for those parliaments but not nationally at Westminster. Some on the liberal democrat tiny corner moan about that which is stupid because we did have a UK referendum and PR was ignored and we stayed as we are.
"'All of the people in his district--including those who voted against
him?" Yes, of course. And suddenly enlightenment dawns--the realization
[…]
Everywhere else, elected representatives represent mainly their parties and the ideology their parties, which is identified with the "public interest." Only in America is it taken for granted that they ought to represent, first of all, the economic interests of all of their constituents.
This sounds like some first-class ignorance at best. Aside from that, it looks like it's attempting to make some point about the word
economic which is just plain illogical. First of all, what proof is there that in Europe we don't think primarily about economic interests as well? And secondly, to say that focusing on economic interests isn't promoting "any particular ideology" is so laughable it shouldn't even need addressing.
But the main point is undeniable: We are different, in our preconceptions and in our aspirations...
Insofar as there is indeed a difference worthy of the name, it would be that belief. :)
This sounds like some first-class ignorance at best.
Ignorance or deliberate lie...
And secondly, to say that focusing on economic interests isn't promoting "any particular ideology" is so laughable it shouldn't even need addressing.
Hail turbo-capitalism aka casino-capitalism!...
Insofar as there is indeed a difference worthy of the name, ...
It depends on how efficient brainwashing works. ;)
Not related but somehow in context:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fcartoons%2Fenglish%2Feconomic_problems.jpg&hash=3e3962621a1e922407be6feec617d06c" rel="cached" data-hash="3e3962621a1e922407be6feec617d06c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/cartoons/english/economic_problems.jpg)
Wonder if they had PR in Texas how many would vote "out."? :D
Wonder if they had PR in Texas how many would vote "out."?
Ever been to Texas? They are pretty convinced they are on their own already. "The Lone Star State" is an attitude.
I haven't been to Texas since '70… And except for them all calling me "Yankee" I had no problems with them. They were good people — despite their opinion of me… :)
I lived there. Then spent weeks out of every summer there after that, tagging along with the old man on business trips. It was a good chance to get away and enjoy some freedom in my teens. I was unaware I was being disparaging. It's a fine place. I like it. I just don't think they need any convincing they could go it alone.
Only been in two of your States ensbb3 but I was kind of passingly curious about Texas and it was stirred by a programme shown on television here in GB just about three or so years ago on Texans who wanted out of the Union. No doubt they would be a minority whilst at the same time there seemed a bit of a presumptuous Texas attitude.
Texans who wanted out of the Union.
I mean, the last time it was an option they left.
No doubt they would be a minority whilst at the same time there seemed a bit of a presumptuous Texas attitude.
Well they are aware of the benefits of being one of the wealthiest States in such a Union too. But you wouldn't have to talk to many of them before learning that and every other thing great about Texas. Friendly tho... Oh, and cowboy garb is not a costume there.
Please understand, poor Scotsman, that Texas has been constrained by rules set by Congress, a long time ago. Once upon a time, Texas could become 6 states — but that option went away a long time ago.
We're not like your lot: We decided on union, and made it a prerequisite. It stays as it is.
You silly geese can keep voting, over and over… :)
must say that ensbb3's answer is more sensible than constant hiccup OakdaleFTL. Yakking on about "us" on voting. Can I say if you are not sozzled that at5 least voting has a point here! Was interesting to know that going on wearing Stetsons is not typical any more than us wearing kilts everywhere.
Though everybody here wears like this:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPz6w1Ow_iey_J_pwDe-j02rYC0XnntIM-pAdmocd32BecIlg-CQ)
Well I prefer looking like a man.......
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/66/bb/7e66bbd010e6efcc32d59d34ecc8490d.jpg) :)
Looks like a man... :left:
Looks like a man... :left:
...in skirt.