Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
i missed him arguing that you should join a party

The article is titled "against independent voters." The alternative is to join a party. He asserts that people who aren't part of a party don't beleive in anything (paragraph 6), are self obsessed (paragraph 7), and possibly stupid (paragraph 8). He then argues that I should join a party:

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties... If you are really interested in the way things should go in the country, come off the high pedestal and join the rest of us in the nurturing (and, yes, dirty) soil of the partisan free-for-all.

this is not something which I am clear on in my own mind as to whether a proportional or first past the post system is better

Does anyone run a proportional system? When I consider this the first issue that comes to my mind, possibly more stark in America than in the UK, is that representation in our system of government is in accordance to geography, which is actually an antiquated idea in some respects.

i realise i missed him arguing that you should join a party (i wasn't being facetious) hence saying i missed it and refering to Stanley Fish's reader theory about the practice of reading
the germans have one form of proportional representation and indeed most of continental europe has some form of proportional system
there are various system of proportion representation and some do have a geographical element -- the whole subject is rather tedious and technical see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

from wikipedia

Mixed election systems combine a proportional system and a single seat district system, attempting to achieve some of the positive features of both of these. Mixed systems are often helpful in countries with large populations, since they balance the mechanisms of elections focusing on local or national issues. They are used in nations with widely varying voting populations in terms of geographic, social, cultural and economic realities, including Bolivia, Germany, Lesotho, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

more from wikipedia

Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957.

and yet more

Proportional representation is the dominant electoral system in Europe. It is in place in Germany, most of northern and eastern Europe, and is also used for European Parliament elections.

edit
please note certain information is intrinsic to your culture
i would be refered to in my culture as a Labour voter and supporter rather than an independent or swing voter but i'm not nor have I ever been a member of a political party. Certain things get lost in translation across the Atlantic therefore the title of the article means something rather different to me -- i come with a very different set of assumptions -- however to me as i said actually joining a party is not something i plan and compare this data I found -- unfortunately the source is online but only through academic access or pay
source
http://ppq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/4/355.pdf

Table 1. Individual party membership, 1983–2003

1983
Labour 295,344
Conservative 1,200,000
Liberal Democrats 145,258*

1987
Labour 288,829
Conservative 1,000,000
Liberal Democrats 137,500*

1992
Labour 279,530
Conservative 500,000
Liberal Democrats 100,000

1997
Labour 405,238
Conservative 400,000
Liberal Democrats 100,000

2001
Conservative 350,000
Liberal Democrats 90,000

this compares with votes in 2005 General Election
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

Labour 9,562,122
Conservative 8,772,598
Liberal Democrat 5,981,874

sorry for the messy table it won't format

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog