Good for adults

The results of the parliamentary elections in Canada clearly show how the district voting system distorts party representation. In other words, the number of votes each party receives is not reflected in the composition of Parliament. Larger parties benefit, while smaller parties are disadvantaged.

Under the Canadian electoral system, the country is divided into 308 districts, each with approximately 105 inhabitants. The candidate with the most votes is elected in each district – thus, there are 308 representatives.

The distortion of this system is easy to understand: candidate A, from Party Y, has 50 votes in his district M, defeating candidate B, from Party Z, who had 49 votes. Meanwhile, candidate C, from Party Y, won in his district N with 45 votes, defeating candidate D, from Party Z, who had 44 votes.

Total votes for Party Y: 95. Total votes for Party Z: 93. Practically tied, but Party Y (with 50,53%) will elect two representatives to Parliament and Party Z (with 49,47%) will not elect any. In a proportional system, each party would have elected one representative, which would be more in line with the representation they both have in the two districts.

The distortion becomes very clear when looking at the results in Canada:

The Conservative Party received 39,62% of the vote and elected 166 deputies – 54% of the seats. Based on the proportion of votes it received, it should have had 122 deputies.

The New Democratic Party, a social-democratic party, received 30,62% of the vote and elected 102 deputies – 33% of the Chamber. They should have had 94.

The Liberal Party, with 18,91% of the vote, elected 35 deputies – 11% of the seats. But it should have had 58 seats.

The Quebec Bloc, which advocates for the independence of the province where Montreal is located, received 6% of the vote but only won four seats, or 1,3% of the Chamber. They should have won 18.

And the Green Party, with 3,9% of the vote, elected only one representative, 0,3% of the seats. Proportionally, they would have 12 representatives.

The proportional calculation doesn't add up; four seats are missing. But that's precisely why the proportional system calculates the remaining seats.

It's not difficult to reach a conclusion: the district system favors the larger parties, which are better positioned to have the most voted candidates in each electoral district. Thanks to the system, the Conservatives won 44 more seats than they should have, and the Social Democrats gained eight more.

The smaller parties, however, were severely disadvantaged. The Liberals lost 23 seats, the Quebec separatists 14, and the Greens 11. That's 48 seats that, respecting the proportionality that each political force has in the country, were illegitimately given, according to the proportionality criterion, to the two largest parties.

This type of distortion, inherent in the majoritarian system in parliamentary elections, also occurs in the United Kingdom and the United States. The tendency is for the number of parties to decrease, as the smaller ones end up being swallowed by the larger ones. It is not only in Brazil that parties without prospects of power end up losing their members to those in government. And small ideological parties cease to be represented because they cannot achieve a majority in any given district.

In the United States, there are effectively two parties: Democrats and Republicans. In the United Kingdom, a third force, the Liberals, only emerged a few years ago, but hegemony is contested between Conservatives and Labour.

No electoral system is entirely imperfect or entirely perfect. Elections by district also have their advantages. One of them is the greater proximity between voters and elected officials, because, since the constituencies are smaller than a state or a country, this interaction is easier. Candidates and elected officials are more accessible to voters.

Another advantage of district voting is that it requires less campaign spending. Since candidates only have to campaign within their district, a more limited geographical area, they spend less on advertising and other expenses. This is what they call the "structure," as it's now called in Brazil.

It can also be argued that it is advantageous for the voter to vote for a person clearly identified with a party. Since each party presents one candidate per district, there is no doubt about this identification. And, moreover, the voter votes for the candidate knowing that if he wins the majority, he will be the one elected, and only he – without taking anyone else along in the wake of his votes.

The major problems with the majority, or district, system are, therefore, its failure to recognize proportionality between parties, its favoring of larger parties and its disadvantage to smaller ones, thus hindering the representation of minorities. For this reason, the Germans, after the Second World War, combined the two systems and created what in Brazil is called a "mixed district" system. It's not perfect, but it significantly reduces the problems of both the purely proportional and majority systems.

There are plenty of reasons.

Given so many lies, the lack of release of images of what happened, and the body thrown into the sea, Barack Obama is running a serious risk: a Bin Laden lookalike could appear on Al Jazeera claiming to be him and that the Americans lied.

The idea will stick in many people's minds, including those who were chanting "USA" on the day the terrorist leader's death was announced.

It would be good if Obama could tell and show everything that really happened right away.

Wrong man, wrong place

The director-general of the National Petroleum Agency, Haroldo Lima, is a leader of the Communist Party of Brazil, the PCdoB of the Araguaia guerrilla, and was a member of the Marxist-Leninist Popular Action.

The head of security at the National Police is Captain Wilson Pino, "Lieutenant Emerson" at the then DOI-Codi in Rio, accused of violence during the military governments.

Perhaps Lima didn't know that Pino was Lieutenant Emerson, but Pino always knew very well who Lima was.