NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... major parties, which qualify all their stances, can still hardly come to terms now, how on earth would numerous small parties with real defined positions accomplish work together? Plus, if PRs aim is to have more productive authentic representatives, then it stands to reason that for every authentic representative on one end of the political spectrum, there would be another on the opposite end. Is it not likely that advocates of Diversity would simply be opposed and countered by advocates of uniformity? Moreover, the realistic consequences of electoral methods that seek to give every citizen equal legislative persuasion usually turns out to be less progressive than hoped. Whereas winner-take-all generally ensures that the political center will control public policy, polls suggest that PR is much more likely to augment the overall political strength of extremists rather than centrists.
Perhaps the average American might have some more open-minded ideas than the average Republican Senator, but to say that American social policies would become much more progressive solely because all voters have a fair influence on the making of those policies is absurd. In addition, if another goal of PR is to have representatives who wont diverge from their constituents interests, it stands to reason that the same force which tethers authentic positive representatives to their constituents in all likelihood would bind authentic negative representatives to their radical constituents. Instituting a system that blindly maximizes the encouragement for elected officials to become delegates rather than to be trustees would, for these rationales, capitulate no more, if not less, social equality than we have presently (Graber, 1996, p. 2 - 3) Subsequently, Champions of PR argue that under the winner-take-all system, representatives do not represent their constituents diversity adequately (Evans & Oleszek, 1998); and that PR would harness representatives to the interests of their constituents (Graber, 1996, p 2). This is not necessarily a good thing. James Madison said that law making should not hinge on preference aggression and bargaining among interests. Hamilton believed that republican principals shouldnt call for an unqualified compliance to every impulsive breeze of passion.
Nor did he think the Republic should be subject to each fleeting impulse which citizens might be given from men who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. In their writing, both men encouraged political bodies to try to curtail the force of any type of prejudice on public policy, not to institute the premise that prejudices should be equally represented (Graber, 1996, p. 3 - 4). Finally, fair representation for all (Hill, & Richie, 1999) translates to mean that voters shouldnt be politically liable. Saying, no one is responsible for their own political ideas, because the parties arent fair.
No one is responsible perusing his or her political beliefs, because the representation method isnt fair. Voters arent responsible for low-voter-turnouts, because the system isnt fair. Unlimited fairness diminishes the amount of responsibility placed on the individual, basically saying that voters can have it all and not make any political trade offs. Supporting PR, Rep. Cynthia McKinney said in 1995: In a multi-member district, voters would have more than one representative to elect and more than one vote to cast. Hence, if a voter liked one candidate's position on abortion and another candidate's position on taxes, he or she could vote for both and conceivably see both of their choices selected.
What its supporters really mean is that PR permits people to assert their political values without any concessions between priorities. Writing about democracy, Fredrick Hayek said in 1944: The periodical election of representatives, to which the moral choice of the individual tends to be more and more reduced, is [now] not an occasion on which his moral values are tested or where he has constantly to reassert and prove the order of his values and to testify to the sincerity of his profession by the sacrifice of those of his values he rates lower to those he puts higher (233). Instead of telling voters that they are responsible for putting their most important standards first, despite the cost, PR tells them that the system should be more fair. That they should be able to have everything they want; that they can have their cake, and eat it at the same time.
All things considered, PR supporters need to carefully study public opinion and public priorities if they hope to determine the probable impact of preferred voting schemes on electoral and legislative decision-making (Graber, 1996) because now, they simply dont know. Until then, elections are competitive events and should be treated as such. Mr. Richie said in a 1998 article that, everybody wins is the logic behind PR; this statement is inherently illogical though.
For anyone to win, someone logically has to not win, i. e. loose. Besides, the U.
S. is a Republic founded on the principal of majority rule. This isnt Athens, flooded by the sound of every man shouting his opinion and proclaiming the newest hysteria-of-the-day, knowing that the loudest voice wins. Not everyone can win, nor can all voices be heard. Thats the flaw with PR, the irritating premise that winning is a universal right, and the assumption that everyones random viewpoints should be considered equally important. Some views are simply outlandish and contrary to the mainstream, which is precisely why people espousing them dont often get elected.
The belief that true fairness requires nothing short of proportional representation (Diversity or, 2002) isnt enough to launch a major onslaught against the winner-take-all system. References: Bain, L. (1999, July 5). Whats Wrong With Proportional Representation? Laissez Faire City Times, 3 (27). Retrieved January 24, 2004 from: web CNN. com. (1999, April 18).
Low Voter Turnout Kills Italian Election Reform. Retrieved February 14, 2004 from the World Wide Web: web europe/ 9904 / 18 /italy. even/ Discriminations. (2002, November). "Diversity" or Proportional Representation? Retrieved February 2, 2004 form the World Wide Web: web Evans, C. L. & Oleszek, W. J. (1998, March).
If It Aint Broke Bad, Fix it a Lot. American Political Science Association, 31 (1). Retrieved January 30, 2004 from INFOTRAC database on the World Wide Web: web 87833 w 5 / 17! pr 1 0 A 20561948 Graber, M. (1996). Conflicting Representations: Lani Guinea and James Madison on Electoral Systems.
Constitutional Commentary, 13 (3). Retrieved January 30, 2004, from EBSCO database (Academic Search Premier) on the World Wide Web: web Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Madison, James. (1788, February 20).
The Federalist Papers: No. 58. The Avalon Project. Retrieved February 13, 2004, from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School database on the World Wide Web: web /avalon / federal /fed. htm PR for Congress. (1996).
National Civic Review, 85 (1). Retrieved January 28, 2004 from INFOTRAC database on the World Wide Web: http: //infotrac-college. thomson learning. com / itw /info mark/ 809 / 242 / 45087833 w 5 / 13!
pr 5 0 A 18334795 PR Library. (2001, December). Glossary of Terms. PR Library. Retrieved February 28, 2004 from the World Wide Web: web Reading / glossary of terms. htm Richie, B. (1998). Full Representation: The Future of Proportional Election Systems.
National Civic Review, 87 (1). Retrieved February 2, 2004, from INFOTRAC database on the World Wide Web: web /itw / info mark / 658 / 954 / 70 564510 w 3 / 21! pr 15 0 A 20826055 Richie, B. & Hill, S. (1999, May 13). British Reforms May Reveal U. S.
Future. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, . Retrieved January 28, 2004, from INFOTRAC database on the World Wide Web: web /itw / info mark / 809 / 24 2 / 45087833 w 5 / 9! pr 1 0 CJ 54621688 Voting For Fuzzy Unity. (2003, January 25). Economist. 366 (8308).
Retrieved January 24, 2004 from EBSCO database (Academic Search Premier) on the World Wide Web: web World Policy Institute. (1999). Types of Electoral Systems. Democracy: Electoral Systems. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from the World Wide Web: web
Free research essays on topics related to: public policy, academic search, proportional representation, world wide, james madison
Research essay sample on Would Proportional Representation Strengthen The Republic
