Wolność i wybory

Przewija się teza jakoby wybory większościowe w Jednomandatowych Okręgach Wyborczych była ordynacją liberalną, natomiast proporcjonalne były szatańskim wymysłem komunistów. Dosyć osobliwa teza, możliwa chyba wyłącznie w Polsce. 

Nie będę sam się wysilał w tej kwestii, lecz oddam sprawę w ręce dwóch zachodnich (brytyjskich czy amerykańskich) liberałów. 

John Stuart Mill, ikona brytyjskiego liberalizmu, krytykuje niemiłosiernie system z JOW. Zarzuca mu wyłączanie mniejszości z procesów decyzyjnych, dyktaturę większości nad społeczeństwem, brak zasady równości głosu, manipulowanie poparciem wyborców (tzw. wybór Hobsona).

Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practiced, is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favor of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State.(...)

In a representative body actually deliberating, the minority must of course be overruled; and in an equal democracy (since the opinions of the constituents when they insist on them, determine those of the representative body) the majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives. But does it follow the minority should have no representatives at all? Because the majority ought to prevail over the minority, must the majority have all the votes, the minority none? Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard? (...)

The injustice and violation of principle are not less flagrant because those who suffer by them are a minority; for there is not equal suffrage where every single individual does not count for as much as any other single individual in the community. (...)

When the individuals composing the majority would no longer be reduced to Hobson's choice, of either voting for the person brought forward by their local leaders, or not voting at all (...)

Bill Redpath, znaczący członek amerykańskich libertarian, prezentuje zdanie swojej partii na temat ordynacji: 

O JOW: Under such a system, the game for candidates for public office becomes one of trying to be all things to all voters and to offend the fewest people possible. This is why candidates don't take detailed or controversial positions. If you take six positions, each of which offend 10 percent of the electorate, you're finished.(...)

Other results of JOW voting are voter alienation, low voter turnout, the perception (and reality) of wasted votes, district gerrymandering, candidates appealing to "the center" (translation: avoiding the issues), and the resultant two-party monopoly.(...)

Tu o manipulowanie okręgami między domunijącymi partiami: District gerrymandering engineers the results of elections before they occur through the blatantly political drawing of district boundaries.

O optymalnej ordynacji wyborczej można przeczytać tu.

Na koniec małe cytaciki z Milla... takie zabawne i nie w temacie. Woda na młyn dla redshifta i kolibrów. I w nawiązaniu do wyników 'badań' zaprezentowanych przez Jarka Jareckiego. :D

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement."