I went to the article for more details but I have to say that the explanation still baffles me, although the political implications are quite clear.
Baffling system:
"The system sees two deputies elected to each of Chile’s 60 districts and two senators elected to each of its 19 constituencies, resulting in a National Congress of 120 deputies and 38 senators.
"In Chile’s congressional elections, the majority candidate takes the first seat, with the runner up allotted the second. However, candidates are forced to run in pairs from the same electoral coalition, and two candidates from the same coalition can only win both seats if their coalition received at least twice as many total votes as the competing one. This means that a coalition receiving 65% of the vote in a district wins one of the two positions, while the second place coalition, which received 35%, also wins a position." --from the OP
Political implications:
This system sees that the two most powerful coalitions - Concertación on the left and Alianza on the right - almost always win a seat each in a voting area.
"Supporters of the system claim that it fosters political stability, prevents the creation of populist regimes common to Latin America and ensures representation of the large minority.
"Critics, on the other hand, argue that the system has a negative impact on representation, in that the large minority and majority receive an equal stake in an electoral outcome. The system has also been criticized for engendering competition among members of the same coalition, rather than between rival coalitions.
"Parties across the political spectrum have called for change, but (rightwinger, corpo-fascist) President Sebastián Piñera has not made electoral reform a priority, choosing not to mention it in his latest “Presidential Message” this month, much to the dismay of those in favour of reform." --from the OP
-------------------------------
This was the design of one of the most heinous fascist dictators in Latin America--Pinochet--and it very much reminds me of Reagan's henchmen writing the Honduran Constitution--the one that labor and other progressive groups challenged in 2008, with President Zelaya paying for his championing of their proposal by getting rousted out of bed at gunpoint, kidnapped and whisked out the country, via the U.S. airbase, and Honduras now a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. transglobal corporations and the International Republican Institute, and crawling with rightwing death squads, drug traffickers and other Pinochet-like elements.
Honduras' Constitution was written to insure control by the "ten families" and the U.S. funded/"trained" Honduran military. The poor majority wanted to re-write it. Its importance as an instrument of oppression was highlighted by what happened next.
Pinera is a little more circumspect but the effect is similar--to prevent reforms that would even things out between rich and poor--a process that has been very democratic and very successful in the re-writes of the constitution in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, and that, in addition, paved the way for general prosperity (including astonishing economic growth rates). "Austerity" for the poor while the rich get ever richer will eventually--and sometimes very quickly--destroy a society. OUR society is being destroyed this way, as we speak--with the collusion of both major parties. Chile seems to have a similar problem--the major parties follow the rich, and share their immorality, gobbling up wealth and power to remain in power. (And all three of the above countries had this problem, which was only solvable by rewriting the constitutions.)
Notice how the supporters of the system as is, in Chile, sneer at "populist regimes" even getting the word "common" in there (if the article writer is accurately portraying their viewpoint and language--it's not in quotes).
As for "stability," the entrenched rich destroy societies, not the poor. Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have never been more stable and have never been more fair and equitable. Fairness and equality are what produce "stability," not the merciless, conscience-less looting by the rich. This is even more true now that merciless, conscience-less looting by the rich has gone global and involves huge, powerful, unaccountable entities--virtual 'countries' unto themselves, like Exxon Mobil, BP and Goldman Sachs--who hijack entire national militaries to their venal purposes. THEY create an unstable world--a world filled with death and hunger--in which they buy, undermine or invade countries and peoples who won't pay their protection money and its ever-escalating rates of extortion.
I find this word "stability" very curious in the Chilean discussion, used by the right to justify rule by the elite. Does the right still consider Pinochet's bloody oppression to be "stability"? "Stability" for whom? But I think something else, or something more, is meant. I think it is a threat to the "populist governments" they are sneering at. How could these very democratic, inclusive, populist (i.e., "New Deal"-like) governments BE "destabilized"? They are not only the most stable governments of these countries in the last half century, they are working closely with other democratic leaders--for instance, the leftist leaders of powerhouse Brazil--to improve the lot of long-oppressed poor majority, and to improve inclusiveness and democracy. This leftist democracy revolution in South America is widespread. It is an historic change for the better, paid for by decades of pain, suffering and struggle. Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, was beaten up by police for his union activities. Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, was imprisoned and tortured by the fascist regime in Brazil. (Michele Batchelet, former president of Chile, was also imprisoned and lost family members to torture.) Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, was imprisoned for his union activities.
These and other such leaders and their allies are determined to expand democracy, opportunity and social justice, and to prevent the fascist elements in their societies from ever gaining such power again. How is this describable as "instability"--unless "instability is BEING PLANNED?
= new reply since forum marked as read
