In two previous posts (1 , 2) talked about the fall of Italian government. One of the things I mentioned was that the Italian political parties (and thus their leaders) do not represent the interests of the majority of the
This divorce between voters and elected has tried to be solved in different ways, which can be summarized in two forms, single-member or listing. In the first case, a person chooses to name, that is, the voter knows who the individual, his ideas and his promises and therefore granted the vote. In the second case, the voter chooses a party or group of voters, and unless informed not know who choose to represent, usually when voting, lists are still the group's ideas on the vote (yes it is a communist, it is natural to vote for the Communist Party) or is still the leader of this group , are by their ideas or charisma (if Berlusconi).
For lists, the thing is particularly complicated because the truth is that nobody knows who you are voting, do not know if you really defend your interests or rather defend the interests of the leadership of his party. It is more or less what is happening in Italy today: you vote for parties like Forza Italia (Berlusconi) or the Democratic Party (Prodi) and is only known the name of their heads more visible, no one knows who the other MPs who belong to these parties. And this form of election that has caused the divorce between reality and Italian politicians.
In Venezuela, the divorce between politicians and people began to be evident during the second government of Carlos Andrés Pérez, when our political class saw their privileges threatened, decided that we could afford a degree of single-member in our electoral system, allowing members of legislative bodies (Congress, legislatures and municipal councils) were selected by 50% by name and surname, and 50% through lists and ratio election. In my opinion, this measure was carried out for voters to feel more identified with these people, who in the past did not know, while some jobs were reserved for the elite of the parties.
In the United States and in Britain, members of legislative bodies are elected in their entirety by name, therefore they must respond directly to the voters who know who to choose and what their ideas . Ergo, in theory, should keep in touch with his constituents to stay in the armchair.
Despite this emphasis on the individual to be elected, the single-member system can become in a de facto closed lists: you vote for someone because he belongs to a group not for their individual qualities. Such is the case of the censure vote, as happened in the U.S. elections where people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in protest against the Bush Jr. Another example are the various elections under the mixed system that have occurred in Venezuela implementation: people continued to vote for the party, not the individual, or was the case of people who lost uninominal vote but who came to parliament through the list.
Yet there are other ways to transform a selection by name on an election lists, as the case of the Constituent Assembly elections that took place in Venezuela in 1999, all single-member representatives were elected, but thanks to the popularity enjoyed by the president, he served as aircraft carriers, making people vote for so and so because their names do not tell them anything, but because they were people of Chavez. If we add the mechanism used for this election that allowed the use of so-called "kinos Chavez" and the elimination of traditional polling stations, there was a victory that gave the government control over 90% of the National Assembly (only had 4 members of the Assembly which were not government). This was done by selecting by name and surname.
As you can see, the single candidate is superior to closed lists but does not guarantee per se a true representation, as a charismatic leader or a discomfort with the government, whether real or perceived, can make a voter choose an option that is not in favor of their interests, or to put partisan interests above their own. Unfortunately, voting is not a rational act, but something totally irrational, as shown in the current pre-electoral process in the United States, where the picture has more weight than ideas.
Despite this, I still maintain that the system single candidate is always better than ready for the simple reason that one knows who votes, but it is the duty of the voter be informed about the ideas of the candidates, if only we vote for so and so is handsome, such-is the daughter of this or is Sutan fan of (insert name here), we deserve to rule us oligarchies unable and / or corrupt.
Policy, election, reflections
