Search results

This article develops a proposal of reform to the current binominal electoral system in Chile, presenting an alternative for transforming its main disadvantages without its total replacement. Therefore this alternative implies a less drastical change than moving to proportional representation (PR), which makes it unnecessary to revise the distribution of the representative's numbers by unit of representation. Furthermore, by maintaining the basic aspect of the binominal formula, this reform does not alter the conditions under which the current legislators were elected as such. Then less reluctance should arise on its behalf. ; Este artículo desarrolla una propuesta de reforma al sistema binominal mayoritario por lista, mostrando que existe una alternativa que elimina o aminora sus principales defectos sin requerir su sustitución completa. Esta alternativa tiene también la ventaja, a diferencia de cambiar drásticamente el sistema por uno proporcional, de que no es necesario revisar la distribución de los números de representantes por unidades territoriales de representación. Además, al mantener el aspecto básico de la fórmula binominal, esta reforma altera menos las condiciones bajo las cuales los legisladores actuales fueron elegidos, con lo cual debieran surgir menos reticencias de su parte por considerarla y adoptarla.

In his article "Taming the Tiger: Voting Rights and Political Instability in Latin America," Josep Colomer proposes to go beyond the "singlecountry stories… typical… of the existing historiography" on Latin American elections and politics and to develop instead "an explicitly comparative, theory-driven analysis, which is more characteristic of the social sciences literature." I am all for such comparative analysis, although I would guard myself from belittling the achievements of historians who have examined national experiences in painstaking detail or the merit of a highly analytical comparative history such as that presented in Eduardo Posada-Carbó's recent work (2000). But theory-driven comparative analysis is difficult to do well. One has to know the historical experiences one is comparing very thoroughly, and one has to know how to develop the concepts that will build the theoretical argument in a dialogue with the evidence. The result should be to provide a better understanding of the evidence in ways that even those who know the histories well will find both useful and illuminating.