SK790 wrote:what, exactly, would the negatives be? i'll have a longer post later, but just wanted clarification.
thanks for those links.
I would say the two big selling points of PR is an increase in the number of competitive parties and all (or almost all votes counting). Because of that, you see greater choice so you're going to find a party that represents your views, which usually means higher turnout and other downstream benefits. In governance you see coalitions that represent a broader segment of the population.
I don't really know how PR would work in the US given our Presidential system with separation of powers. PR usually leads to coalition governments because it's very rare for any one party to win a majority. It's hard enough getting Democrats and Republicans to compromise, but imagine if you've got a Democrat in the White House, a Republican/Libertarian coalition running the House and a Democrat/Green coalition running the Senate and trying to pass anything. Countries that have proportional representation don't have two houses of parliament that are equal in power plus a powerful executive who is chosen separately from the legislature. It's too many potential veto points for anything to ever pass. So along with the fact that we'd never pass proportional representation in the real world, other even more dramatic changes would have to take place to make it work.
Other negatives - the introduction of extremist parties into the system. Racist/fascist/communist parties can get into the legislature if they only need 2-5% of the vote to get representation.
-Instability of coalitions leading to frequent collapses of governments
-Ability of party leaders to enforce unanimity by booting disloyal members off the list
-Disconnect between the elected officials and local constituencies
