Week 4 Assignment 3

The first thought that comes to mind for some reason when considering multi-member districts and proportional voting is the European Union. If you dig deep enough the European Union operates in this fashion to some degree. Not in the sense that there is representative voting for all interested parties, but that there is representation to a great degree for participating members and that policy formulation rests upon total cooperation on trade and economic affairs, common foreign and security policy, and justice on domestic affairs (Adolino & Blake pp. 95). This criterion is a managed form and direct authoritative way of functioning as multi-member districts, in my opinion. Within the context of creating multi-member districts in the United States I can see the decrease in power the States to self-govern because they would be forced to participate upon a national agenda of issues, between a larger section of representatives and policy designs.

To answer this topic more directly I would have to argue along the lines of polarization. According to Adolino & Blake, “ Countries with multi-party systems have a greater tendency toward government instability because of the difficulties associate with either forming or maintaining a governing coalition,” (pp. 54). Too many opinions and decentralized power can corrupt the system, so even though inclusion is created it has its fault in causing chaotic order, and or fractionalizing order. This also adds fuel to incremental change because now more options and policy decisions must be considered. Single member districts, according to Adolino & Blake, “ …are often valued for the strong legislative majorities they produce, resulting in a politically stable legislature, and for the clear and direct ties they create between elected representatives and their constituents,” (pp. 59). Although multi-member districts create a type of equity and representation among the officials selected, to me it will eventually not matter because someone will shift the power through strong decision making and policy implementation. Or as Adolino & Blake suggest no one will be the clear advocate or leader, causing confusion among the constituency (pp. 61).

In my opinion I would argue that would lead to even a much slower process of policy development. As inclusion is manifest more time will be assigned to create representative results. I prefer strong leadership by the elected majority because it creates results and within a less time consuming time frame. There must be another alternative to crate inclusion and increase voting representation, in order to support more causes and policies, under which strong leaders can move outcomes along a resolute framework.

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press