>>>>>>>Representation in the government should be proportional to the number of votes won.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are some who keep trying to bring in proportional representation, but it never seems to get any traction. Surprising? No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Proportional representation is hardly a panacea, especially in parlimentary systems. It frequently leads to coalition governments where the minority parties wield power far in excess of their actual representation.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing is a panacea when it comes to parliamentary governments, but I think it makes far more sense than what we now have. And personally I think that coalition governments can work far better than majority governments because it places better checks and balances on the ideological whims that you sometimes get with majorities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Be that as it may though, could you please explain what you mean by "minority parties wield power far in excess of their actual representation". I'd have thought they wield power in exact proportion to their actual representation."
>>>
>>>Imagine a Parliment of 200 seats. The biggest party has approximately 75 seats. A party with which it co-exists peacefully has 20 seats. To form a government they need to add six more seats. This small party will now probably get a ministry. In addition, by leaving the coalition they could bring about the fall of the government. All this power comes to a party representing 2% of the parlimentary seats.
>>>
>>>You can look at Italy and Israel as examples.
>>
>>But they can't do these things frivolously. If they do; especially if they bring down the government, they will likely pay for it in the ensuing election. I still think it's a better system than the one we have now where some people's votes are worth more than others. No system is going to be perfect, but weighting the system is inherently unfair to the voters.
>
>No reason to assume that it would happen frivolously. It could easily be a matter of consience. The point is that a tiny minority party has the power to bring down the government, thus wielding far greater power than their proportional representation would indicate.
>
>My reading of post-WW II history indicates that the most stable governments have been those with "winner-take-all" seats while the most unstable governments have been those with proportional representation systems.
>
>It's a tradeoff. Your choice depends upon which you value more..."stability" or "fairness." In our recent past we have had to balance constitutional freedoms against national security. Your choice depends on which you value more and how much of one you are willing to give up to gain in the other.

We've had a number of coalition governments here, and personally, I've felt they've done a better job governing for 'all the people' than our majority governments have. As for stability, yes, you are right there. They are less stable, but I've found that majority governments have a tendency to rule out of ideology rather than out of what the citizenry see as 'best policy'. Remember that usually in a majority government the majority of voters have a different ideology than the ruling government (evidenced by the fact they voted against them). Far too often the government ends up acting for a minority of voters when implementing its policies. If we had a way here in Canada to disolve an unpopular majority government I might feel differently about it, but we don't. We have to live with what the majority of voters see as bad policy until the next election - usually 5 years. There is a downside to government stability too.