The first of the actions that we must take is getting rid of deputies. There are 200 that get in the way...The plurinominals have no reason to exist. The leadership of the parties is dominated by them. The bridge of the party line. They are the point of the spear than harms or kills ideas, proposals, solutions.I find this argument extremely unconvincing. (More here. And here, though I can't remember exactly where.) First of all, for all his certainty, Ferriz provides nothing to support the idea that by virtue of plurinominal election, a senator loses his creativity. The obvious counter-example to that supposition is Manlio Fabio Beltrones, who's tossed more ideas out there than anyone in the PRI over the past three years, and who was elected by plurinominal votes.
More broadly, why shouldn't a party be able to tab its most talented figures for indefinite service? Wouldn't the Democratic party be better off if the rightward swing of South Dakota didn't mean that Tom Daschle was out of the Senate? Wouldn't the Republicans be better off if Jim Leach or Chris Shays could have perhaps survived the anti-Bush backlash?
On the other hand, the perils of strictly geographic voting are well known to followers of American politics. Strictly local priorities are regularly placed ahead of a broad conception of the national interest. Consequently, pork is as vital to the political body as blood is to my physical body, and important and undeniably beneficial legislation is held hostage, for example, to Ben Nelson's relationship with Nebraska's banks.