Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dennis Pilon The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2007Reviewed by Osvaldo CrociElectoral systems are mechanisms to turn votes into parliamentary seats. Different electoral systems have different consequences or, to put it another way, maximize different values. Thus, plurality systems are more likely to yield majority governments and thus maximize the value of stability. Proportional systems, instead, usually lead to a fragmented party but maximize the value of political representation. Most political scientists agree that there is no ideal electoral system. Its choice is simply a matter of which values one wishes to maximize. Dennis Pilon disagrees. He argues that plurality systems are not easily reconcilable with democratic values or, as he puts it: Those who would highlight stability and majority governments as the key values in designing electoral systems at the expense of representing our political differences favour values that limit democracy and political contestation (p. 9).There is little doubt that by adopting a proportional Canada would not only maximize different values ... but would also trade the negative consequences of the plurality which are well-known in Canada with those of the proportional one which are not.This is a strong statement which Pilon fails to anchor on solid political philosophical grounds, limiting himself to assert, in my opinion unconvincingly, that terms like 'majority governments' should mean ... that the government actually represents a majority of the people (p. 2). This book, however, cannot be dismissed as a plaidoyer for proportionality even if Pilon is one of the founders of Fair Vote Canada, an advocacy group that works towards the adoption of some form of proportional electoral for all levels of government in Canada. The author's stated preferences or values do not make it a simple political tract. Although not without some flaws, it is a learned and scientifically rigorous work that can be profitably read both by political scientists and the general public.After discussing the characteristics of the major types of voting systems, Pilon offers an indepth and accurate analysis of the way in which plurality systems work, focusing in particular on their shortcomings. While I completely share Pilon's critique of plurality systems (Croci, 2011), I find it difficult to agree with his analysis of proportional systems. Pilon, in fact, concentrates on how proportional systems maximize his preferred values but hurriedly dismisses their shortcomings. To minimize the tendency of proportional systems to yield short-lived governments, for instance, Pilon argues that Italy's fifty-one different governments between 1946 and 1994 were reallymore akin to cabinet shuffles in the Canadian system (p. 53), brushing over the fact that most of these re-shuffles were the result of changes in the coalition of parties supporting the government in Parliament or to intra-party factional squabbles, two of the usual consequences associated with proportional electoral systems.The book then turns to examine the politics of electoral-system reform, a topic that has rarely been explored in the literature on electoral systems. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».