Hacker News Reader

Of the top twenty most developed countries in the world (ranked by HDI), over half (13) have some form of proportional representation. They aren't all Scandinavian countries, though predictably many are. Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

    Y    Norway 
    Y    Australia 
    Y    Switzerland 
    Y    Netherlands 
         United States
    Y    Germany 
    Y    New Zealand 
         Canada 
         Singapore 
    Y    Denmark 
    Y    Ireland 
    Y    Sweden 
    Y    Iceland 
         United Kingdom
    Y    Hong Kong 
         South Korea 
         Japan 
    Y    Liechtenstein
    Y    Israel 
         France

Correlation isn't causation. The best conclusion you can draw from your list is that neither PR or FPTP inherently hampers development.

> Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

Whoa, that's some strawman. The standard we're looking to prove is "proportionality of representation is pretty closely linked to public satisfaction with government".

> Which of them would you not consider a stable government?

Whoa, that's some strawman.

No. The person who was being replied to specifically wrote about stability.

>When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has

"Has" up to what date? Is there some set length of time they have to surpass? Or are you suggesting the US can't learn anything from other countries until after it collapses and is outlived? Seems like a moot point by then.

> When one of these "modern, established democracies" manages to maintain a stable government (or even survive) for as long as the United States has

That's a lovely artificial requirement you've made there. I assume this means that you think the US system of government is inferior to the UK system of government, since longevity is apparently the only requirement?

And apparently having an extremely bloody secession war counts as 'stability'? Or being at war with your neighbours for most of the first half of your life? The US lost 50% more people fighting itself than when fighting the Axis in WWII a century later.

"That's a lovely artificial requirement you've made there."

Wanting a system of government with proven stability is not a "straw man".

"I assume this means that you think the US system of government is inferior to the UK system of government"

The UK doesn't have PR either. And no, it means nothing of the sort. My argument is that PR tends to be unstable, not that the US system is the only possible stable system.

No, the UK doesn't have PR, but it's a different system to the US. From what you're arguing, the US would be better off switching to their system. If you want to do it properly, you should probably import some Germanic hereditary figurehead - perhaps Schwarzenegger could start the US royal line?

Still, I like you completely sidestepped the question of how 'stability' matches up with having a civil war that was one of the bloodiest in history. You're not actually interested in finding the best form of government; you're only interested in defending your own.

"No, the UK doesn't have PR, but it's a different system to the US."

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. Not going to work.

Stability isn't the only goal, but it's an important one.

"Still, I like you completely sidestepped the question of how 'stability' matches up with having a civil war that was one of the bloodiest in history.

Britain had a nasty civil war also.

"You're not actually interested in finding the best form of government; "

No, because I don't believe that there is a "best" form of government. Attempting to immanentize the eschaton usually (always) winds up with a few million people dead.

I'm interested in avoiding forms of government that are demonstrably bad, based on past performance.