Winner-Take-All Electoral System
While Steven Hill’s plan (“Lessons on the Mechanics of Democracy,” Commentary, Feb. 15) may offer more proportional representation for voters of certain mind-sets and platforms, he fails to address the major fault of such a process: A government stands only as long as the ruling coalition can maintain support. If Hill will look around, he may notice the plethora of political attitudes and demands being made by every special and not-so-special interest group in California, most of which claim to be in death-grip struggles with each other and all of which claim to be in sole possession of “the truth.”
Given that California is already subject to grudge-match recalls by politicians unhappy with voters’ choices, how long would Hill’s parliamentary system offer consensus government? Hill’s substitution will merely create a hideously expensive, endless cycle of voting based on the prevailing electoral mood.
RUDI LOGAN
West Hollywood
* Hill is right when he attributes a lot of our problems to our winner-takes-all approach to elections. It is sad that more people don’t realize this. If they did they would put more efforts into changing our system, rather than trying to pick the lesser of two evils.
RICHARD FOY
Redondo Beach
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
