Foucaulf
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,050
|
 |
« on: May 05, 2015, 05:50:06 PM » |
|
This is a funny argument for me, since the last time I ran for office I supported at-large elections. Given a proportional system and a wide voter base, I thought the at-large system should support more competitive elections and unexpected results. But, like on many issues, I was wrong.
I'm not going to bother responding to the Nays here point by point, but I want to drive the stake into one of their major fallacies. Any argument that at-large votes would benefit independents have to realize they still have to compete against establishment candidates in their races. I should know - I competed in one.
At a national scale, trying to manage everyone's votes is difficult. TPP people helped me with my efforts, but I had two weeks to gain name recognition on two-thirds of the electorate. And it's no surprise that parties dominate given the economies of scale they enjoy with such a wide field to cater.
And, given the parties enjoy this natural advantage on the national level, new players have the incentive to join a party instead of running their own campaign. Worse would be if they aren't even selected by an internally democratic process - but picked.
I'll side with any Labour members (!) who vote Yes, because that's the surest sign they're actually willing to work for their votes.
|
