Just a Monday

[altivo]

More or less, anyway. Saw a bluebird sitting in the crabapple tree outside my little window at work. He appeared to be eating the dried up crabapples from last fall. A year ago there were none of those left because the starlings had eaten all of them during the winter. This year we have a shortage of starlings (I'm NOT complaining, mind.)

Illness left the evening shift short-handed but the newly nominated director offered to cover it, which is nice. Sent out over a hundred items on interlibrary loan this morning, which is high for us. Probably just making up for Friday, which was sparse with less than forty.

In light of the hung Parliament in England, I'm reminded that our founding fathers in the US nearly all opposed partisan politics. They tried to write the Constitution in such a way as to discourage partisanship and make people think for themselves. Washington and Jefferson made many negative remarks about political parties during their lifetimes. In spite of that, by the time of Andrew Jackson the party system was moving into full swing, and has remained so ever since, almost always with just two parties. No wonder US politics has become so polarized.

Comments

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

This is the first hung parliament in a long time. I'd like to think that it might trigger voting reform. But I doubt it somehow. The Cons will be totally opposed to it.

[hrrunka]

They look like finding themselves remaining in opposition because they couldn't consider any significant change to the way we vote...

[altivo]

It looks as if a PR type system would have increased their share of seats this time, I think. However, in a PR type system, once the voters understand it, they will be more willing to vote for the candidate they agree with rather than "the only one who can beat" the candidate they dislike.

That's the problem in the US as well. The existing system does not prevent independent or third party candidates from getting votes or even winning, and a few do so. But overall, voters are using game theory. In a huge number of cases, they are more concerned with keeping a particular candidate out of office than they are with getting the one they really want in. It becomes a game of picking the one you can stand or think you can live with who has the best chance of defeating the one you really fear. This inevitably leads to the other major party, thus perpetuating the "two party system" once again.

[altivo]

Aside on this: Years ago, Illinois had a system for electing state representatives that was designed to insure minority representation. Each geographical unit actually elected three representatives, but any one party could only nominate two. Voters got to vote for two. So they could vote both candidates of one party, split their vote between parties, or "cast the bullet" which meant casting both their votes for one candidate that they really favored.

The three candidates with the highest vote counts were elected to office. I thought this was brilliant as a compromise between the "winner takes all" approach and a true proportional system. It kept the representatives at home, so they were known to their local constituency, but also made sure that more than one viewpoint would be presented from every district.

Of course the whole thing was scrapped during a period when the Republican party had an overwhelming majority anyway. As a "cost-cutting" measure, they switched to single representatives and winner takes all. Voters had to approve it because it was a constitutional amendment, but it was not well explained and was only presented as a money saver, so it passed.

Good voting systems are harder to understand than winner takes all. It's really difficult to get people to use them properly and appreciate them. I'd prefer a system that requires you to rank all the candidates, giving your first choice a one, the second choice a two, and so forth. This can be mathematically processed to select the candidate with the best overall acceptance, but it is considered "too hard to understand."

[hrrunka]

...and just after I made that earlier post the pendulum swang back the other way, and this morning we're waking up to a coalition government. I hope they can work sensibly together for long enough to do some good.

[hrrunka]

Ah yes, the excuse so often used to dismiss without due consideration ideas which might actually have merit. They've used it here as part of the defense of the current system.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

*burps* Sorry about the starlings, I made a pie :)

I think that's what amazes me about the US political system, the Australian system is much more similar to the English system...for obvious reasons.
I just wish they wouldn't fight for the sake of fighting and perhaps work together to make the best deal for all.

[altivo]

You're welcome to as many starlings as you can eat. I hope they don't give you indigestion though. In fact, if you have an appetite for lard and lies, have a few of our politicians as well. But watch the cholesterol level.