In the case of Israel I think that proportional representation has been harmful – the fractured nature of politics there means that getting a majority coalition for foreign/defense policy precludes getting a coalition for any domestic reforms. This is obviously a strategic problem for Israel.

I think Cuba had 50,000 troops in various African wars at one point, they certainly did wield a lot of power in the Third World and were independent of the Soviets. But it isn’t just small countries which now exert disproportionate influence, but non-state actors as well. Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers are examples of how much military power a non-state group can amass – they defeated Israel and India respectively while maintaining strong footholds in Lebanon and Sri Lanka.

Proportional representation in New Zealand has not yet shown its true worth, simply because New Zealanders have not yet learned how to use it. Our MMP voting system still delivers an FPP Parliament. We still believe in archane and counterproductive concepts such as “the tail wagging the dog”, even when the “dog” has the support of fewer than four voters in ten. Less than 40% support is an absolute minority, and does not provide any kind of mandate, by any stretch of mathematics.

But we are so steeped in the culture of having only two alternatives, that we have not as yet contemplated the possibility of real consensus politics, as practised this past half-century in much of Europe and Scandinavia. There, Governments may continue to govern, with the let of the Parliament, but without any guarantee that any particular piece of their party political legislation may pass muster. In coalitions, the leader of the smaller party is often given the job of being Prime Minister, with the leader of the larger party taking the deputy and Finance roles. This appears to help keep everybody honest.

MMP could be greatly improved by lowering the 5% threshold to the same level as that which equates to the total number of votes required in order to win a single electorate seat – about 1.5% I think, though I’m happy to stand corrected on the actual numbers.

As to the real influence of micropowers, in world terms, I believe this is still dictated by the possession of effective military and economic clout, and the demonstrated willingness to utilise them in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Small countries can be influential. Libya had around two and a half million people when it was holding the world to ransom during the seventies and early eighties, Cuba around the same if memory serves correct. Israel, Singapore, and Finland, have all had disproportionate influence in world affairs over the past several decades.

You mention Social Credit with regard to politics in New Zealand, as well as the Bob Jones’ party; their lack of real influence can be more accurately attributed to the faulty FPP system than to the real concerns and issues which their existence and relative success demonstrated. But it was largely pressure from Social Credit activists which convinced Labour to seriously re-examine the concept of proportional representation (coupled with Labour’s own frustration at securing more votes than National in 1981 and still losing the election), and the New Zealand Party lives on to this day in the form of ACT.