Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (3277)	11/23/2003 11:55:32 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37380

since I never vote... "Democracy is the one form of government where the people get what they [damn well] deserve." -g

To: average joe who wrote (3277)	11/25/2003 3:04:51 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 37380

OK, busy..busy.. FPTP without proportional representation (that x% gets x% of seats) is - used only (mainly) by anglo-american nations, UK-US-Canada plus former colonies - the rest of the world uses some form of proportional representation (PR) PR (almost) always results in a multi-party system, governments are formed by coalitions of parties. Large population nations (and some small ones, like Denmark) use a "mix" of FPTP and PR, so that the overall result is PR That is, to ensure that "Local Representation" there is two voting systems - FPTP to make voting districts as small as possible - PR to pick up lesser than 50% majorites-minorites The general rule is that a party with appr 4-8% support should get 4-8% of seats in parliament. However, after this stuff the next thing id how "that government" is formed. plus a lot of other stuff However, personally I would make an analogy about these issues, something like "first one need to go uphill to see what is beyond that hill". That is, the "goal" is what is commonly called "a center-based-consensus-system", to somehow find a "viable" center-moderate-common-sense party (without them taking over everything) Ilmarinen However, no nation has willingly adopted a FPTP system since the 1700s, except Malta. Additionally, what got UK going, once again (they attempted a reform in the 1930s, as well as in late 1800s) was the growing frustration among "average voters" with the FPTP-two-party system. (google for frustration+FPTP??) FPTP is very often called a catch-22 system... another reason not adopted, although both Japan and France struggle to get over "that hill" Note, the meaning of FPTP is that only one candidate is elected from a voting district, "Winner-Takes-All", and the basic excersise is to consider three parties, 33-33-34% support. - the 34% support get the 100% seat - 66% goes into opposition, think it stinks However, skipping all of this, what I need some info on, is this secondary mechanism, g(j)erry-mandering (which is done according to PR in US, by committee, using the opposite, FPTP as a mechanism of the "voters")