Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!yetti!geac!daveb
From: daveb@geac.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: proportional Representation (was N.B. Elections)
Message-ID: <1685@geac.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 08:37:27 EST
Article-I.D.: geac.1685
Posted: Mon Oct 26 08:37:27 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 06:56:36 EST
References: <1168@water.waterloo.edu> <1665@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1010@utflis.UUCP> <1051@looking.UUCP> <2885@hcr.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown)
Distribution: can
Organization: The little blue rock next to that twinkly star.
Lines: 29
Summary: Careful! Baby thrown out with bathwater.


In article <1051@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
| After the election, PV would be tallied for each group.
| Assume a house of 100 members for simplicity.  A group with 35% of the vote
| would get to name 35 members to that house, from their own pre-selected
| hierarchy
| 

In article <2885@hcr.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
| What seems to me to be a reasonable compromise is to have a threshold
| which a party has to reach in order to qualify for seats. In West
| Germany 5% is required. 

  Uh...  be careful guys.

  The two-party system encourages broadly-based coalitions, usually
called "partys".  An n-party system encourages narrowly-defined
special interest groups.
  I would not like to see the latter encouraged in Canada.  I have a
*remarkably* low opinion of the effects of divisiveness, and point
at the squabbling of the Israeli government as an arguably bad
example.

 --dave (the best government isn't the least, its the stodgyest) c-b
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.                 {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers International Inc.,   |  Computer Science loses its
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |  memory (if not its mind)
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 |  every 6 months.