What's wrong with this picture?
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Proportional voting almost always leads to total legislative gridlock. If a minority party can not get a majority of the votes in more than one riding, then it must have either a very poor slate of candidates, or it has a VERY unpopular message.
Then let there be gridlock.
It can't be worse than the gridlock that comes from new leaders who have to waste time reverting the decisions of their former leaders.
And PR definitely wouldn't cause much gridlock in these examples.
In Ontario and Manitoba the party that comes second in the vote projection--and it's not even a very close second in either case--gets the largest number of seats, by a significant margin.
The popular vote and the seat distribution don't correlate mathematically.......................but then they are not supposed to (unless the demographics are exactly the same for each constituency)
Nuthin' wrong there...............
Legislative Assembly of PEI: Members
Not really. It has not led to gridlock in those nations which have used it longest, namely the Scandinavian democracies. Nor has it been much of a problem in Germany. On the other hand, the United States, which has a plurality system has frequently had legislative gridlock on both the federal and state levels.
What seems to matter most is the attitude of those elected. If a large number of those elected are determined to obstruct any efforts by the other party or parties then gridlock ensues. However, if parties can bring themselves to work together then government operates quite smoothly. Essentially a proportional system forces parties to work together or else nothing gets done. Somehow a number of nations with proportional systems have managed to make their much more democratic system work while many plurality systems result in situations in which whatever party is in power spends much of its time in office trying to undo the legislation of the previous government. This is hardly a recipe for good government.