Print

Print


--- Nancy Gish - Women's Studies <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>
> My only point about Bush is that he was not elected
> by a majority
> vote--a fact.

In Canada, there have two recent instances of
provincial governments being elected but only getting
a minority in the popular vote. This occurred in eh
election of the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec
and in the election of the NDP government in British
Columbia.

This can occur in any electoral system which relies on
hierarchical majorities. The government is made up of
the party which can command a majority of seats in the
legislature and seats are given to the party which
obtains the most votes in a riding (constituency).
Usually the government party will receive the most
votes but this is not always the case as the two
recent examples indicate. In the Quebec example, the
Liberal Party vote was concentrated in only a few
regions. They elected members there by wide margins.
The PQ having support over more regions were able to
elect more members with smaller majorities.

The US presidential system as everyone knows requires
not a majority of the popular vote but a majority of
the states. In this, it is very similar to the British
system used in Canada and elsewhere for selecting
governments. This system has the benefit of balancing
both population and regional requirements in the
selection of executives.

This type of system has a long history a long history.
In Canada, the two governments elected with a minority
of the popular vote were both social democratic. They
would be the sort of government that Bush supporters
would vote for. There was no great outcry at the time
that these elections were somehow illegitimate.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com