Emily Thornberry Quotes

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

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.

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

You can have solid third party politics, but the problem is you're all lumped in to all the fringe groups. That's a stereotype that happens.

An American parliamentary system with proportional representation wouldn't immediately or inexorably lead to a flourishing social democracy, but it would at least correct the overrepresentation of an ideological minority and cut down on intentional tactical economic sabotage.

You cannot say we are a healthy, dynamic democracy when one party wins almost two-thirds of the vote.

The National Popular Vote is about getting states to convert from the winner-take-all rule. The states that pass the legislation will assign all their electoral votes to the candidate that got the most votes in the country, not just in the state.

Why, so soon as French Canadians, who are in a minority in this House and in the country, were to organise as a political party, they would compel the majority to organise as a political party, and the result must be disastrous to themselves.

The great disadvantage of our present electoral system is that it freezes the pattern of politics, and holds together the incompatible because everyone assumes that if a party splits it will be electorally slaughtered.

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

Our system of government in Israel has permitted minority groups and sectarian parties to force their way on the majority.

When one party is really unpopular, like the Conservatives in 1997, AV can really skew the result disproportionately against them.

[Proportional representation is a] device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should rule, and for bringing faddists of all kinds into Parliament, and establishing groups and disintegrating parties.

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

If we go by the National Popular Vote, we'll get more people voting.

It's an ancient idea that the leader of a democracy should not be the cleverest but the most average. That's an arguable point, but the world has decided otherwise - except in America, where it still divides the country right down the middle.

Demand the ballot as the undeniable right of every man who is called to the poll, and take special care that the old constitutional rule and principle, by which majorities alone shall decide in Parliamentary elections, shall not be violated.

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule-- and both commonly succeed, and are right.

The parliamentary regime is a regime of parties

There's no place for a third party in the United States.

American politics shows again and again that the best explanation is an accusation.

If you went to a parliamentary system for America, you would have 30 political parties develop overnight—maybe 50.

It would not be for the public good to have greater than two to one

All of us know that any substantial block of votes can cause trouble in the French legislature because practically any French government has to have the votes of many groups to have a majority.

Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions