Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I taught English in Slovakia and my conversation practice sessions was often about students explaining their politics to me. I followed Slovak politics for several years after — and still kind of stay in touch. So I’m somewhat familiar with the dynamics of proportional representation.

One big disadvantage with PR is that it gives parties with extreme viewpoints too much legitimacy. For example, the leader of the Slovak National Party advocated invading Hungary to right some historical wrongs. His party met the electoral threshold, so he got the exposure to continue his whacky ways. Elections did not seem to fix this. A quick check on Wikipedia shows SNP is still a significant player in Slovak politics, but has not evolved into something more moderate.

I bring this up because the premise of western democracy is that citizens decide what they think their country should look like — and then cast a vote accordingly. So if 5% of Slovaks believe Slovakia should mobilize its army to occupy Budapest, so be it.

In essence, voters in both FPTP and PR are using their vote to bend the will of those aspiring for political office. Your two examples show the same kind of political forces. To me, this is a shallow manipulation.

The philosophy of the TDG is different. The TDG finds people of good character and competence for government, then moves the better ones up the ladder. When we have elected people more concerned about the betterment of their society than their own political advancement, we are apt to find better decisions.

We need to change politicians’ mindset from acquiring status, influence, and power to: “If the people believe I have acquired the knowledge, experience, and wisdom to make good decisions for society, I am willing to serve in that capacity.”

A much different kind of politician will result.