A couple months back, I finished "Political Order & Political Decay". The author talks a lot about the role of bureaucracy and how a balance has to be maintained. A bureaucracy that is too shackled spends more time with rules than helping citizens. A bureaucracy that is unfettered means the legislature is impotent. Somewhere in the middle is that right balance.
Anyways, PO&PD is a great book in understanding the role of government. Here is my review of the book.
Voters compromising their vote to their second choice is a problem in Canada. Going to ranked ballot should solve a lot of that, but voters just don't like a complicated ballot. About 20 years ago, the Canadian elections commission set up a rule for Voter ID to get a ballot. Lots of complaints! It took about three election cycles before voters remembered to bring in ID. Implementing a ranked ballot will cause a greater uproar.
That little bit of German research you put me through kind of solidified my position that the differences between FPTP and PR are actually small. Germany is one of the few countries that has reached an advanaced state in political development--and it has FPTP as a significant component of its electoral process. So FPTP is not the sole reason for decline. Nor is PR the sole reason for advancement.
However, I came to the conclusion a year ago that the Canadian system (100% FPTP) is significantly superior to the American system (100% FPTP). I can't fully explain except by the outcomes I am seeing. USA is more gamed in voter choice than Canada--and maybe that is the root of the advance or decline.
The author of PO&PD kind of makes the same conclusion: the Westminster system is more robust than the American system. But he still couldn't let go of current American institutions even though he admitted he has no idea on how to make them better.
In the end, if most citizens trust the government (which is more than the political party in power), the nation can advance.
