Saturday, December 10, 2011

Are multiparty systems necessarily more representative than the two party system in the United States? why or why not?

For the most part, I would say that they are more
representative, but I would not say that they are necessarily
so.


They are generally more representative because in those
systems, smaller parties can more accurately represent the wishes of their members.  For
example, if we had a "Tea Party Party" in the US, it could accurately represent its
members' attitudes without having to compromise.


However,
in such systems, parties might have a harder time representing people who feel that
there are many important issues.  For example, if we had an anti-abortion party and an
anti-tax party and an anti-environmentalism party, what representation would there be
for people who think all of those are equally important?  Or for those who think that
two of the three are but one is not?


Voters all have
different mixes of issue attitudes and issue salience and even multiparty systems cannot
accurately represent everyone.


One other issue to consider
is that, in a multi-party system, you are often voting for slates of candidates rather
than being able to specifically vote for a given person.  You could say this is less
representative as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment

In Act III, scene 2, why may the establishment of Claudius's guilt be considered the crisis of the revenge plot?

The crisis of a drama usually proceeds and leads to the climax.  In Shakespeare's Hamlet , the proof that Claudius is guilty...