Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to I don't see that your "interest group" plan...

And the problem would be?
Robert — (archived)

I don't see that providing representation to a "million" interest groups would be inferior to representation restricted to a choice between either the Republicans or the Democrats. It think it'd be superior. America's too big and diverse a place for just two political parties. Very few people agree with 100% of the either party's platform, but geographical representation cuts people off from effective alternatives. Geographical representation favors the two institutional parties because they each represent a "generalization" of two regions of polar opposites--anybody can find an approximate fit in either party, but nobody (except a brainless follower type) can find a perfect fit in either party. One size doesn't fit all.

Which, of course, is why politicians of the Establishment Party would fight any change to the current system tooth and nail. QED--the present system is the system that put them in power.

Something I don't think you're focusing on enough is the potential to stabilize our political system. Geographical representation sets up most elections to be winner-take-all--one of the two parties "wins" the House and controls it, effectively denying representation to people who voted for the other party; and in most cases we're not talking about a tiny minority whose disenfranchisement can be easily rationalized, but a near-majority on the order of 49.9999%. This is a formula for perpetual discontent. And if a given system of representation routinely disenfranchises nearly half the voters, can you really claim that it works well? Why do people think that winner-takes-all is a necessary part of democracy? Shouldn't (temporarily) minority voices have a chance to be heard between elections?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (79 posts)