From: Gene McAloon 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:07:28 +0200, Phil Payne
 wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1284520,00.htm
l
>
>"Only when the Americans choose a man or woman who is prepared to turn the
>system upside down and reintroduce democracy to the greatest democracy on
>earth will these exceptional circumstances come to an end. In choosing the
>bad rather than the terrible in 2004, in other words, Americans will be
>voting for a similar choice in 2008. Whereupon they will again be told that
>they'd better vote for the bad, in case the terrible gets in."

Monbiot has his moments, but this isn't one of them. The article is a badly
done argument for proportional representation based on the ridiculous
notion that, somehow, Ralph Nader is not only sufficiently liberal to suit
Monbiot, but that a vote for him would reinforce the alleged need for
proportional representation.

Monbiot argues that proportional representation is more democratic than the
present winner take all system. It is not, of course. It is less democratic
than the present system in that it too often denies any party the ability
to get anything done because under proportional representation is can't get
a majority. What is democratic about that?

The argument for proportional representation reminds me of the
"progressive" arguments made many years ago favoring voter
initiatives or referendums as a way of advancing democracy. In fact they
were examples of carrying a good idea, democracy, to such absurd lengths as
to do actual damage to the democratic process.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5