John Bright Quotes

In my view what you can't argue for is a system that is neither decisive nor proportional and can be indecisive and disproportionate at the same time.

America has only 100 Senators for 309 million people, but Stormont has 108 members for 1.7 million.

In England, a Majority of Citizens does not elect the Majority of Representatives.

Divide the Continent into four Divisions, out of which a certain number of persons should be nominated, and out of that nomination to appoint a Senate

Many Americans do not realize that we could institute proportional representation for most elections in the U.S. without amending the Constitution. In helping to educate the public about the potential for voting system reform, CVD can play a central role in a pro-democracy movement right here in America!

I used to be a fan of proportional representation, but I am not at all now I have seen it in action.

A man without a vote is man without protection.

Every democracy is constructed day-to-day. And the electoral process reduces and minimalizes every single aspect of human complexity. We're putting it into pamphlets. We're doing a publicity show. We're becoming symbols.

You want to represent the country and you want elected officials that are representative of the country.

They divided the city into three electoral wards, and in one ward there was 70 percent of the people, the Catholic population, and they elected eight representatives to the city council.

We're half the people; we should be half the Congress.

I think it's a pity that in many people's minds constitutional reform and PR have come to mean much the same thing.

The principle is that every member needs to represent their district.

Legislatures represent people, not acres or trees.

Voters do not decide issues. They decide who will decide issues.

Never you mind about the country, or about the state, or the city, or about the ward. You take care of your precinct.

A man without a vote is in this land like a man without a hand.

The function of a parliamentary democracy, under universal suffrage, historically considered, is to expose wealth-privilege to the attacks of the people.

In our form of democracy the expression of the popular will can be effected only through the instrumentality of political parties.

Under universal suffrage the elected are those who know best how to take in the masses. The minority, which may happen to be the half minus one, is sacrificed.

A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods.

The general assumption of the democratic process is that you identify candidates who come closest to you in terms of values and positions. The problem is many voters are never given the kind of information they need to make the decision.

Proportional representation, I think, is fundamentally counter-democratic.

Many people in the UN vote and then go home where nobody votes.

Ordinarily, proportional representation has a centrifugal effect, because it allows many parties, some of them extreme, to win a few seats and enter the legislature.