daveb@geac.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <1051@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: | After the election, PV would be tallied for each group. | Assume a house of 100 members for simplicity. A group with 35% of the vote | would get to name 35 members to that house, from their own pre-selected | hierarchy | In article <2885@hcr.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: | What seems to me to be a reasonable compromise is to have a threshold | which a party has to reach in order to qualify for seats. In West | Germany 5% is required. Uh... be careful guys. The two-party system encourages broadly-based coalitions, usually called "partys". An n-party system encourages narrowly-defined special interest groups. I would not like to see the latter encouraged in Canada. I have a *remarkably* low opinion of the effects of divisiveness, and point at the squabbling of the Israeli government as an arguably bad example. --dave (the best government isn't the least, its the stodgyest) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.