Thank you. I tend to be unenthusiastic about proportional representation.
It makes it unnecessary for parties to form broad coalitions of voters.
Instead, the coalition formation tends to happen in the back room as
parties negotiate for power. Moreover, it proliferates parties and thus
further increases factionalism in elections. Israel strikes me as an
example of the harm that PR can cause. I recognize that there can be
situations of extreme ethnic or political polarization in which PR is
necessary, but to me it is a last resort.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, richard.lung wrote:

I believe the technical term for members of the opposite party colluding to give each other safe seats is called 'sweetheart' gerrymandering. 

 It is also, I believe, why, when push comes to shove, for the proportional representation of ethnic or ideological minorities, that we have seen in other English speaking countries, list systems are used to deny the election of individual representativ

es. 

Typically, a hybrid of the two undemocratic systems has been introduced.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Lung.

http://www.democracyscience.ic24.net

http://lit4lib.artshost.com

richard.lung@lineone.net    or
richard.lung@ic24.net
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Craig Oren 
  To: Paul Ryan 
  Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:14 PM
  Subject: Re: Hunt v. Cromartie Decided


  I realize this shows that I am behind the times, but something strikes me
  as wrong about constructing a district "so that we'll have an equal number
  of Republicans and Democrats in the House." What room does that leave for
  elections? sorry for posting twice in one day.


  On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Paul Ryan wrote:

  > The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision today (4/18/2001) in Hunt v.
  > Cromartie, involving the ongoing saga of redistricting North Carolina's 12th
  > Congressional District.  The Court held that the district court's conclusion
  > that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997
  > boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.  In reversing the
  > district court, the Court described the basic question as "whether the
  > legislature drew District 12's boundaries because of race rather than
  > because of political behavior (coupled with tradition, nonracial districting
  > considerations)."  The Court found that the evidence does not show that
  > racial considerations predominated in the drawing of District 12's
  > boundaries because race, in this case, correlates closely with political
  > behavior.  The challenged majority-minority African American district is a
  > constitutionally valid result of a redistricting process establishing a safe
  > Democratic district, where African Americans register and vote Democratic
  > between 95% and 97% of the time.
  > 
  > The opinion can be found at:
  > 
  > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1864.ZS.html
  > 
  > 
  > Paul Ryan
  > Center for Governmental Studies
  > 10951 West Pico Blvd. Suite 120
  > Los Angeles, CA 90064
  > Ph. (310)470-6590 ext. 115
  > Fax (310)475-3752
  > 
  > 
  > 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Professor Craig N. Oren                    telephone *856-225-6365
   Rutgers School of Law-Camden               fax  *856-969-7921
   Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey
   217 N. 5th Street
   Camden, N.J. 08102-1203                    oren@camden.rutgers.edu

  *please note the new area code.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Professor Craig N. Oren                    telephone *856-225-6365
 Rutgers School of Law-Camden               fax  *856-969-7921
 Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey
 217 N. 5th Street
 Camden, N.J. 08102-1203                    oren@camden.rutgers.edu

*please note the new area code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------