I am not sure about the UK, but in the US: Until women, particularly married mothers, are represented in government leadership positions in the same proportion as their percentage of the population, you won’t have representative democracy. Until this injustice is addressed, you won’t see progressive public policies in support of families’ economic and healthcare needs, in support of childrens education, in support of environmental responsibility, nor in support of peaceful foreign policy.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 10 2005 15:16 utc | 4

gylangirl, while I do agree with your premise that the elected and selected policymakers of the United States do not represent anyone except corporate interests and one another, and I also agree that the number of poorly aging white males in that leadership is highly disproportionate with the actual population, I am slightly offended by the implication that white men have a monopoly on bad behaviour. I think that it is dangerously naive (as well as sexist) to hold the a priori assumption that a married woman has a more progressive set of priorities than a married man would.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 10 2005 15:46 utc | 6

@gylangirl – there was a discussion in Germany to let children vote “by proxy” of their parents, i.e. let a couple with three children have five votes. But this ran immediately into problem and the discussion went off to “who deserves more voting power” with all kind of groups claiming underrepresentation.

Posted by: b | May 10 2005 16:15 utc | 8

In a patriarchal system, yes, women who make it to the top will reflect patriarchal values, so Margaret Thatcher’s gender per se had little effect on her government’s policies. Women who get to the top are no dummies: they see what gets rewarded [male value systems]and mimic it.
However, if in general you look at the well-documented gender differences in female leadership styles, female communication styles, and female priority values, then there is a difference in how women would direct public policy. You CANNOT achieve peace, nor earth stewardship, nor caregiving public policies without the addition of women to the power structure. A male-dominated power structure is what you have and so the male values of hierarchical, force-based class systems rather than power sharing, of caregiving are the ascendant values enshrined in public policies.
I am not saying that matriarchy is the way to get these things. But that is what you are saying when you object to my point: you are saying that patriarchy is sufficient to achieve progressive public policy. I am saying it is impossible to enshrine female value systemns [which is what the progressive agenda basically reflects] in public policy while simultaneously marginalizing all females as a class.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 10 2005 19:05 utc | 10

Here in British Columbia a Citizen’s Assembly gathered opionions and developed a recommendation for a “Single Transferable Vote” that is now a referendum in our May 17th provincial election.
Aparently this is similar to Ireland, where each riding or electoral region will have between 2 and 7 seats, with all parties welcome to run as few or as many candidates as they wish.
Voters must select a first choice, optionally a second, third and so on.
An outright majority gives a seat to that candidate, with the “extra” votes divided by their 2nd choice to the next candidate, or if there is no majority winner the least popular candidate is dropped, those votes distributed and then a recount.
Colman, is this similar to your system? Also, do you think it produces more minority governments? The idea of strengthening local power may be a good counter to the typical parliamentary result of the Premier having ultimate authority in a majority government … currently a problem here. Incidentally BC now has elections every four years rather than called by the party in power.
I am intending to vote for this “BC-STV” initiative, it seems like a good opportunity to focus attention on government and the electoral system — also, if it pans out in this province there may be changes afoot in other provinces and some debate on the national level.
Our Liberal minority federal government is in trouble and an election may be forced soon — that’s the excuse given by Prime Minister Paul Martin for showing up a day late at the VE ceremonies — he was afraid of a vote of non-confidence while out of the country.
The ceremony was on the weekend, yet Parliament does not sit on the weekend. How could an election have been called?

Posted by: jonku | May 10 2005 19:17 utc | 12

To compare systems – Germany has a 50:50 mix of member representation and proportional representation for the Bundestag. (the Bundestag is the House. The Bundesrat, the Senate, is not directly voted on but the state governments send their representatives. It has less influence than the Bundestag, but can make things messy like it is doing now)
Voters have two votes. One for regional candidates in 300 regions where a winner will be elected by a first past the pole rule and one vote for a party list where the nationwide proportional votecount will determine how many people from a specific list will be elected. In total this will be another 300. So 300 through member representation and 300 through proportional nationwide vote. (There are some additional specifics like a minimum 5% list vote to get any proportional representation at all etc.)
This leads to a three or four party system usually with the need to form a coalition to be able to rule in a stable environment.

Posted by: b | May 10 2005 20:06 utc | 14

The French system offers an interesting combination of proportional votes (mostly for local assemblies and the European elections), allowing parties to get counted, and two-round elimination voting (for the main parliamenatary vote) which allows for tactical candidate withdrawal and votes between allied parties ensuring that you have (i) a majority for one side or another and (ii) diversity within each camp.

Posted by: Jérôme | May 10 2005 22:58 utc | 16

link to swiss politics
it’s not perfect but one of the best possible.

Posted by: cyphee | May 10 2005 23:41 utc | 18

Nobody seems to be mentioning the Diebold factor in any or all of these electoral systems.
Who gets to _count_ the votes?

Posted by: catlady | May 11 2005 5:27 utc | 20

Elections are not working because they have been inverted, like so much else. Britons had to choose between Blair and Howard. Both are crooked QC’s (Queen’s Counsel); both are members of the Privy Council; both swear an oath to the Queen, not the people. That’s democracy?
The Establishment has its own solution to this problem. Back in 1978 when Scottish independence was put to a referendum, a second requisite was imposed. Not only would an independence vote have to beat the union vote, but it also had to register 40 percent of the electorate.
Independence was the winner, but reached only 39 percent.
Whose interest was served? Why the Queen, of course.
Apathy is the fault of political leadership, not the people. If we instituted a system whereby a certain minimum percentage must be reached, they would be forced to stimulate the vote by differentating themselves. It would be the end of Blair – “I may be on the right, but I’m not as far to the right as Howard” – winning as the lesser of two evils.
Think about it. She did not want breakup, so 39 percent was not enough. But she does want Blair so 21 percent is plenty.

Posted by: John | May 11 2005 12:09 utc | 22