Would electoral reform help?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 28 October 2005 12:37.

The lead article at the excellent VDARE website is interesting for several reasons.

First, it is a reply to some recent articles by MR’s own Geoff Beck. It seems that MR, with over a million hits now, is getting noticed.

Second, it discusses in a calm and reasonable way Geoff’s assertion that there are differences in the way that Congressmen of different ethnicities vote on immigraiton issues.

The author doesn’t dispute that these differences exist. He does add, though, that the representatives of these ethnic groups are much more pro-immigration than the rank and file (for instance, about 50% of Jews want less immigration, but only 4% of Jewish political leaders; similarly 44% of blacks want less immigration, but only 2% of their political leaders).

Third, the author, Randall Burns, uses data which suggests that wealthy donors favour Congressmen who are pro-immigration. Mr Burns concludes that the cause of immigration reform would be aided by reforms to the electoral system, including public funding of political parties (which we have in Australia) and proportional representation.

Fourth, and most interesting, Randall Burns is a progressive. He wants conservatives and progressives to unite in favour of electoral reform, which would give both groups a better chance to represent rank and file concerns, rather than those of a wealthy elite.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:04 | #

In reply to Burns

1) In a mass democracy those that control media and money control the country, so of course he is right.

2) Where Burns and I seem to disagree is on the artifact of racial identity expressed in the voting scores.

I think that Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics are in fact expressing their group evolutionary strategy by weakening their greatest racial foe - the majority European population of the United States of America.

Yes, I really believe that. Does Mr. Burns think that way? I’m not sure.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:46 | #

All that is being said here is that there exist conflicts between minorities as well as twixt the minorities and the majority. Ordinary members of the black and Hispanic minorities tend to look to their personal interests in the former regard, and see one another as competitors. Their leaders, however, are focussed less on their fellows’ concerns and more on the struggle for hegemony at the group level.

In neither case is anyone acting against group strategies, evolutionary or otherwise.

As far as electoral reform is concerned, Mr Burns lacks an analysis of OMOV democracy per se - or he might be slightly more adventurous in his recommendations.

Posted by seelow heights on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:25 | #

I keep wondering why there is so little interest in proportional representation among the all the various minority political tendencies excluded from the rotten two-party syste ( Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party, “the patriot movement” , and WN’s). Given the general dissatisfaction with the two-party system there might be a chance to get it adopted in one or more States with initiative and referendum. PR would at least give a WN-type group a chance at securing a foothold in the system- like the BNP has in the UK.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:24 | #

Seelow,

In England the only election run on PR is the European Parliamentary one. All the rest are FPTP. The Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are PR-elected. But so far as I am aware the BNP has not yet contested a seat in either.

Posted by Andrew on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:31 | #

Mark, have you heard of Dr Amy McGrath.
She has done an extencive investigation on this subject and has put it in to book form:“The Frauding of Votes”.Once apron a time it was a Labour party inspired Crime, now it is an Ethnic inspired event: why would that be?
The Ethnic Powers are learning to branch stack electoral seats and Branches, and they are learning how consistently stupid and ignorant Society has become as well as our supposed Protectorate.
Big trouble on the Horizon.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:34 | #

Non-sequitur: it’s been a good week in politics! First Miers is withdrawn now Libby is indicted!

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:00 | #

Re the Vdare article.

Odd that Gates, Buffett and various Waltons are so pro-immigration. Theyve got more money than they can ever spend right now. They dont have to take a short term view about cheap employees now, they could just take it a bit easier. Do they happily tell their kids that one day America will be gone and ah, if only they could live to see it?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:05 | #

Part of what they’re doing is eliminating potential white competition in advance—especially, white competition that might otherwise have confronted their regressed-to-the-mean heirs at some future date ... (yes they’re also flooding the place with hightly-competent yellows and Subcons but in nowhere near the proportion of the highly-incompetent varieties of non-whites and they need some cover for what they’re doing—so they bring in a number of Subcons and yellows to give themselves plausible deniability as to what they’re really up to, who can in the meantime serve as IT slave-wage workers and so on.