From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:00 PST
Subject: SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION: Was Nicar
Nf-ID: #N:9211171100.AA06051@tba.msi.corne:-772254701:000:5689
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Nov 17 03:00:00 1992


Subject: SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)

SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?

    "[In Nicaragua, 1984] the National Assembly seats were allocated
    according to proportional representation so that minority parties
    were assured of 35 of the 96 seats [..]"
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    "In contrast, the single-member-district electoral system used in
    the United States is much less representative and therefore less
    democratic. The party that polls a plurality of the vote, be it
    40, 50 or 60 percent, wins 100 percent of a district's
    representation, while smaller parties, regardless of their vote,
    receive zero.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    "The winner-take-all system deprives third parties not only of
    representation but eventually of voters too, since not many
    citizens wish to "waste" their ballots on a party that seems
    incapable of establishing a legislative presence.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[From:
       ========================================================
       I s   N i c a r a g u a   M o r e   D e m o c r a t i c
       ========================================================
            T h a n   t h e   U n i t e d   S t a t e s ?
       ========================================================
                        By Michael Parenti (*)

[From: Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 26, Summer 1986]]


========================
System of Representation
========================

The FSLN won 64.9% of the vote, a victory that was only a few
percentage points higher than the one enjoyed by Ronald Reagan in
1984. The two runner-up parties, both center-rightist, won 13% and 9%
respectively. The National Assembly seats were allocated according to
proportional representation so that minority parties were assured of
35 of the 96 seats (including six seats that under the electoral law
are allotted to the losing presidential candidates of each party). All
this was dismissed by Reagan as "an electoral farce without any
meaningful political opposition."

   -->  [See NICA-84 ELECTIION to fully appreciate the Orwellian     ]
        [nature of this "assessment" of Reagan's                     ]

In contrast, the single-member-district electoral system used in the
United States is much less representative and therefore less
democratic. The party that polls a plurality of the vote, be it 40, 50
or 60 percent, wins 100 percent of a district's representation, while
smaller parties, regardless of their vote, receive zero
representation. Proportional representation provides a party with
legislative seats roughly in accordance with the percentage of votes
it wins, thus assuring minor parties of some parliamentary presence.

But the single-member, winner-take-all system magnifies the strength
of the major parties and leaves the minor parties with a percentage of
seats (if any) that is far lower than its percentage of votes. The
winner-take-all system deprives third parties not only of
representation but eventually of voters too, since not many citizens
wish to "waste" their ballots on a party that seems incapable of
establishing a legislative presence.

===================
M i n o r i t i e s 
===================

There are other criteria by which the American and Nicaraguan
democracies might he compared. For instance, there is the treatment of
minorities. Much is made of the Sandinistas' forced relocation of
Miskito Indians during a time of serious border attack, a policy that
quickly proved not only wrong but in some instances wrongful. Today
Managua is now trying to undo its previous policy and resettle the
Miskito on their lands, an approach that compares favorably with the
U.S. treatment of Native American Indians, to say the least, and with
the forced relocation of the Japanese into concentration camps during
World War II, uprooting them from California communities, that --
unlike Nicaragua -- were never threatened by enemy invasion. Nor did
the U.S. government ever compensate the Japanese for the losses they
sustained in the way of homes, businesses and farms

        [The U.S. did finally pass a law to compensate the Japanese ]
        [Americans who were interred and their descendants (1988;   ] 
        [article is '86); the distributions of the funds were still ]
        [under delay last I heard. During the debate in Congress on ]
        [that reparations bill, as seen on C-SPAN, the Republican   ]
        [opponents, big supporters of the 300,000 million military  ]
        [budget, spoke solemnly of their sympathy but the problem of]
        [lack of funds...                                           ]

   -->  [Use GET with the file FSLN MISKITOS for a documentation of ]
        ["Sandinista treatment of Miskitos; Charges and Reality"    ]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET FAIRNESS NICA-USA ACTIV-L to]
        [LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET for a copy of this file.         ]

   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]

        [To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are ]
        [two words  separated by a space), send the 1-line message: ]

   -->  GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

        to: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET [or: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -