I wrote the below and have noticed this since:
"British politicians and voters know a lot more about the different ways a democracy can be structured than we do. In recent years, the Brits have instituted various forms of alternative voting and proportional representation for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and for elections to the European parliament. Also, over there, changes like these can be made (and unmade) legislatively, without the rigmarole of amending constitutions and overcoming filibusters."
First it's the "those Europeans are superior" bow to a foreign elitism.
Then it is "rigmarole of amending constitutions and overcoming filibusters."
That rigmarole helps slow down disastrous decisions from being made by the likes of those Hertzberg so admires, even if they can be so easily "unmade". (please. does anyone think that politicians will do anything to make their tenure more tenuous?)
Hertzberg blows and his writing lends the New Yorker a shelf life which is inversely proportional to the ego stroke he gets from ruining a once powerful publication.
Now to what I had begun to say:
Well I just mentioned the New Yorker.
I notice that Hertzberg mentions some important matters in England, and it is important.
I will merely suggest that the man is out of touch and make one comment on the matter, regarding this:
"Some political background. The British electoral system, like ours, works best if there are two parties. Unfortunately, they have three parties. One is center-right (the Tories), one is center-left (Labour), and the third (the Liberal Democrats, or Lib Dems) is sorta center-center-left."
That's a lot of center going on!!
So much to agree on, everyone is really kind of close on all matters, center one way, center another, center center.
What could go wrong?
That's my comment, you consider for yourself.
From his post:
Some political background. The British electoral system, like ours, works best if there are two parties. Unfortunately, they have three parties. One is center-right (the Tories), one is center-left (Labour), and the third (the Liberal Democrats, or Lib Dems) is sorta center-center-left. As a result, the center-left tends to be disadvantaged. The system they’re thinking of going to—what we call Instant Runoff Voting or Preference Voting, what they call the Alternative Vote or A.V.—is most popular among Lib Dems, a little less popular (but still popular) among Laborites, and not very popular among Tories.
None of this changes the fact that IRV/AV is a good idea. IMHO.
No comments:
Post a Comment