Thank you for your continuing support for my writing, Dave. I appreciate it.
I do have to correct you a little bit. Europe has an extensive and intensive relationship with democracy, and I am not talking just about the Greeks here. When reviewing American democracy and its inception next to the line of people-representation in Europe it really is nothing but sitting right on that time line. But, yes, it was absolutely well done (for its day).
I know people learned something else in school, how it was all new since the USA, but that is just cultural hegemony. Looking at history with one eye closed is perhaps something ingrained in Anglo culture. Plus, Europe’s history is also full with nasty leaders, but not enough to cover it all up.
Yes, the USA inherited the British legal system, which I believe is a follow-up of the Roman legal system, not uncommon in Europe.
The Founding Fathers looked at all the democracies of their time and were for instance intrigued by the wealthy Dutch Republic. But Switzerland and Poland were already democracies before them. There were also many city-states that governed themselves, and what we know here in North America as town-hall meetings was already the fashion of the day with the Germanic tribes.
Jefferson proposed proportional representation (but we didn’t get it), and in the mid 1800s district representation became a real issue. Folks recognized that voters were not represented by their representatives but by winners. Belgium lawyer and mathematician D’Hondt then figured out a voting system that delivered. It was first implemented in Slovakia, if I am not mistaken. This is late 19th Century/early 20th Century when a good number of European nations went proportional.
What is special in human history is that interbellum Germany became the largest nation ever to put unrestricted proportional voting in place, with the described outcome in the article.
All other nations in Western Europe reverted back to their old system (in most cases, proportional) after the German occupation ended.
Your question what the best system in the world is depends not on one eye open, but two eyes open.
Luxembourg can have a dictatorship and still function more or less the same it does today. It has little powers to dictate the playing field, and it has no choice but to adapt (and adopt) what surrounding nations do. Yes, there is some play, but not to the point that the system change will make many major outcome shifts possible.
Take Canada, and there is quite a bit more play, to do as Canadians please. Still, neighbor USA is a bit big and cannot be ignored. Better be friendly and get some good deals going.
When I look at all large players in the world, only the EU has the multi-party reality that does give voters some good power over their lives. Especially now that district-led UK is leaving it may be possible to create a less neo-libertarian society and becoming a bit more social again on mainland Europe. Reagan and Thatcher changed the dial from social- toward money-based a bit and all had to follow or all money would have left the continent.
All other large players in the world (100+ million people) are run by one party or two parties. That means in my dictionary repression of what the voters really want (with as caveat that there should not be too many parties either).
So, what is the best system? It depends on the nation. Can Canada be improved? Yes, particularly by establishing a local voter entity that has power over its own local reality (as I learned from you). Should Canada desire more parties? Not really. But the German system (with the five percent threshold) would make the Canadian system more fair, and voters would be more inclined to vote what they like instead of having to voting strategically.
Do I want the US to have more empowered parties? You bet-ya. Just like UK, India and China.
And, I’d like Brazil and all South-American nations to abandon their Presidencies. It is too easy for a single leader to yank society in a myopic direction.
Thanks for your good question, Dave.
