Proportional Representation

[maplesyrup]

August1991....good suggestion and good link.

New Zealand's electoral system

Most provinces in Canada are exploring ways to find a more FAIR voting system. Why is Ottawa stonewalling?

I understand we are only one of two systems left in the world that uses this antiquated first-past-the-post system.

Fair Vote Canada is an excellent site to learn about PR.

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/

What's it going to take to get a PR system in Ottawa?

[August1991]

PR in Canada must be on a provincial basis.

I don't think PR would require a constitutional amendment. Anyone know?

[maplesyrup]

PR in Canada must be on a provincial basis.

I doubt that.

[maplesyrup]

Dubious Democracy

We grow up with a lot of myths about our country - quite enlightening.

[Remus]

What if half the seats in the commons were elected through PR and half elected though first past the post in their riding.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, let's see.

If we assume similar numbers to what happened on Monday, you'd have 154 seats FPTP instead of 308.

154 seats, 67 Liberal, 10 NDP, 50 CPC and 27 Bloc.

The remaining 154 would be PR, or

154 seats, 57 Liberal, 24 NDP, 46 CPC and 19 Bloc

So the totals would have been

124 liberal, 34 NDP, 96 CPC and 46 Bloc.

Note how the NDP (the leading proponent of PR) picks up a healthy 15 seats under this modest plan

[Remus]

Well, let's see.

If we assume similar numbers to what happened on Monday, you'd have 154 seats FPTP instead of 308.

154 seats, 67 Liberal, 10 NDP, 50 CPC and 27 Bloc.

The remaining 154 would be PR, or

154 seats, 57 Liberal, 24 NDP, 46 CPC and 19 Bloc

So the totals would have been

124 liberal, 34 NDP, 96 CPC and 46 Bloc.

Note how the NDP (the leading proponent of PR) picks up a healthy 15 seats under this modest plan

Electoral Boundaries would also make a difference and NDP strategic voting would play less of a role. We also need representation by population in a stricter sense. PR seat should also be attached to the provinces so high voter turn out in certain regions does not lead to more seats for the BQ. 100% francophone turn out would lead to many more BQ seats if the ROC remaind at 60% turn out.

In other word I think you model is to simple.

[Black Dog]

PR seat should also be attached to the provinces so high voter turn out in certain regions does not lead to more seats for the BQ

Can you elaborate?

The BQ, by the simple fact of being a Qubec only party, would be limited in the number of seats they could obtain.

That said, electoral reform should be about removing artifical barriers, not putting up new ones.

[August1991]

I just did a rough calculation of the NZ system applied to Quebec and in the process of doing this, I realized that the BQ will not likely accept such a system.

Furthermore, the debate about such a system would get mixed up (as usual) with the endless debate between federalists (would be pro) and souverainistes (would be against).

----

Below are the party votes in Quebec for the 2004 federal election:

Lib: 37.9%

Con: 8.6%

NDP: 4.6%

BQ: 48.8%

Electorate Seats

BQ: 54

Lib: 21

Party Seats

BQ: 0

Lib: 7

NDP: 3

Con: 6

Total (91)

BQ: 54

Lib: 28

NDP: 3

Con: 6

In NZ, a party must get over 5% to qualify but I gave 3 seats to the NDP. The total of 91 should be lower because the electorate seats should be fewer.

[maplesyrup]

Canadawide 2004 - 100% PR

Popular Vote

Lib: 36.7%

Con: 29.6%

New Dem: 15.7%

Bloc: 12.4%

Grn: 4.3%

Oth: 1.3%

Total: 100%

Seats

Party/Actual/100% PR/Difference

Libs: 135, 113, decrease by 22

Con: 99, 91, decrease by 8

New Dem: 19, 48, increase by 29

Bloc: 54, 38, decrease by 16

Grn: 0, 13, increase by 13

Oth: 0, 4, increase by 4

Total: 307

[August1991]

Bloc: 54, 38, decrease by 16

The BQ won't go for this. And in Quebec, PR will always be to the Liberal advantage and to the PQ/BQ disadvantage.

[maplesyrup]

Apparently the Germans have a form of PR. Anyone know how it works?

[Black Dog]

From another thread...

So, how would PR increase waste?

Glad you asked.

In order to garner enough support for votes, the government would have to include concessions to the supporting parties in every bill. (This would also happen if the government had to get PEI's support to get every bill through the senate, by the way. )

It would slow down the process of governing, and add costs as well.

Yes, there's a certain amount of negotiation and compromise that goes on under PR. Yes, that could mean include governments adding costs to maintain support. Yes, PR can slow the process down.

These, however are not necessarily bad things. After all, if speed and efficiency were what we wanted from government, we'd just dispense with the whole messy business of democracy and apoint a dictator or supreme monarch. However, democracy is messy. True democracy requires maximum representation and PR is by far the best way to ensure it.

Here's an interesting US-oriented article that includes a good run down of the German system.

The Case for PR

[maplesyrup]

Réformer sans précipitation

Les élections du 28 juin allaient, pensait-on, changer les choses puisqu'avec la fusion des deux partis de droite se constituait une solution de rechange au Parti libéral. Ce ne fut pas le cas. Les électeurs ont préféré malgré tout partager leurs voix entre les 12 partis officiellement reconnus. Selon le choix qu'ils ont fait, leurs votes n'ont pas tous eu le même poids. Un calcul simple permet de le démontrer : 31 000 voix auront suffi pour faire élire un député bloquiste; 36 700 voix pour un libéral; 40 350 voix pour un conservateur; et 111 400 voix pour un néo-démocrate. Quant au Parti vert, les 580 816 voix obtenues ne lui auront donné aucun siège. On ne peut avoir de démonstration plus éloquente des iniquités de l'actuel mode de scrutin uninominal.

so what they are saying here is that in the recent election it took:

31,000 votes for a Bloc seat

36,700 for a Liberal seat

40,350 for a Conservative seat

111,400 for a New Democrat seat

and even with 580, 816 votes no seat for the Greens

[August1991]

Thanks, MS. I'm going to post this elsewhere and see what happens.

On s'amuse.

[maplesyrup]

BD....thanks for the PR link.

It is a good basic article and explains that under the German system there s a 5% minimum threshold which addresses one of the major concerns - fringe parties.

[mimsy]

Jeffery Simpson makes a good point, that PR, even if it's the partial PR "Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)" system used in New Zealand, would result in more minority governments and rule by coalition. This, like so many things, may be good or bad depending on your point of view.

I agree that constant minority government would be destabilizing in a country like Canada. Who wanted a Conservative-Bloc coalition this time around? Prospects like this would continue popping up until Confederation fell apart.

The Law Commission of Canada has produced a report on how MMP might work in Canada. I believe they suggest about a third of Commons seats be allocated proportionally.

http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/gr/er/er_re..._report_toc.asp

It may be a good report, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with implementing MMP.

To have any electoral districts larger than provinces for the purposes of PR, constitutional amendments would be required. Provinces are entitled to fixed numbers of seats in the Commons and Senate.

As an alternative, I suggest a majoritarian House of Commons and a nationally proportional Senate. This would be similar to mixing the two system-types as MMP attempts, but with important advantages gained by keeping a "winner takes all" system and a PR system separated in two legislative chambers.

The Senate could provide an effective check on majority governments, and possible stability to minority governments. Fringe parties (the Canadian Greens would be one under the German system) would have an easier time getting into the Senate than the Commons. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[maplesyrup]

I am very surprised by all you folks that are constantly expressing concern about taxes, that you don't want to abolish the patronage filled appointed Senate, which is such a huge waste of taxpaper's money.

Making it count

[maplesyrup]

Provinces mull changes to voting system

In B.C., the provincial government has convened the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, a random group of men and women to decide in the fall whether to stick to the current electoral formula, or switch to another system, most likely some form of proportional representation.

If the group decides the current system needs to be replaced, it will be put to a province-wide referendum during the next provincial election which takes place on May 15, 2005. The new system would take effect in the 2009 provincial vote.

Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are also considering some type of voting reform.

"B.C. has set the bar very high for other provinces in terms of how to do a public consultation and decision-making process," says Larry Gordon, executive director of Fair Vote Canada.

"None of the other four have gone so far as to turn it over to the public entirely."

Proportional representation basically means that the popular vote in a given election reflects the number of seats the party will receive in the legislature. About 50 countries around the world use one of the many forms of this voting system.

Fair Vote Canada was established in 2000, after the federal election returned Jean Chretien's Liberals to Parliament with a sweeping majority. Its goal was to push a voting system that would more accurately represent the voters, proportional representation.

"The questions we tended to get were, well, this is a really interesting idea, but you don't think anybody would allow this to happen, do you?" Gordon says.

"Every government of any political stripe once they're in power tend to think that the voting system is just fine."

Layton favours the proportional representation system. If it had been used to determine the outcome of the latest federal election, his New Democrats would have received a whopping 47 seats

Pretty scary eh dudes?

[caesar]

"As an alternative, I suggest a majoritarian House of Commons and a nationally proportional Senate. This would be similar to mixing the two system-types as MMP attempts, but with important advantages gained by keeping a "winner takes all" system and a PR system separated in two legislative chambers. "

I think this sounds like a great idea Mimsy.

[maplesyrup]

New Zealand system a `qualified success'

OTTAWA—In New Zealand, proportional representation has encouraged a diversity of political ideas, better legislation and a parliament that more closely reflects the makeup of the country's population, according to a political scientist.

"I think most people would say it's been a qualified success. It has certainly resulted in a more representative Parliament," said Raymond Miller, a professor at the University of Auckland.

/

He said the new voting system met the promise of bringing more women and minorities into government. The country's current parliament is about 30 per cent women, he said. And it also boasts 15 per cent representation from New Zealand's indigenous Maori people, who make up 14 per cent of the population.

And proportional representation has opened the door to smaller parties, he said. "We currently have eight political parties in the parliament representing a wide range of different interests. Traditionally, we would have no more than two," Miller said.

He said conservative voters who like what he calls "strong and effective" government might consider proportional representation — and the inevitable coalition governments it produces — less effective.

"Coalition governments involve some consultation and compromise and trade-offs with small parties and that tends to slow down the decision-making process," he said.

But Miller argues that while it takes more time, the need to reach a consensus on big issues tends to produce "better legislation and legislation that meets with stronger public approval."

[maplesyrup]

Reports of PR's perils are greatly exaggerated

The main thrust of PR skeptics is that the system consistently fails to produce effective government because it requires parties to negotiate everything on an ad hoc basis or inside a coalition for a fixed period of time. Yet the systematic evidence assembled by students of comparative government does not back up this assertion. Many of the best governments in Europe are elected under PR systems. It is on the basis of its performance that the mixed PR system used in Germany was adopted first by New Zealand and then for the new Scottish and Welsh assemblies.

In assessing minority governments, we must take care not to lump together those under our first-past-the-post system with minority or coalition governments produced under PR. Minority Canadian governments under Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau were quite effective, passing important legislation. Yet, like other Canadian minority governments, they were short-lived.

But minority governments under PR do not present that same danger. Provoking an election does not bring majority government. So nothing is to be gained by acting irresponsibly. We can see this in the recent experience of continental European PR countries as well as New Zealand, Scotland and Wales.

When it comes to what sort of government we want, we need to ask how much of a free ride the largest party should be given. First past the post gave the Liberals a free ride for 11 years. Not having to negotiate or even explain policies, they provided generally competent government but, increasingly, directed the fruits it produced toward pet projects, causes and organizations. Popular dissatisfaction -- not just with Liberals but with democratic institutions -- was inevitable.

PR puts parties in government to harder tests. Without an automatic majority, they have to spend time between elections -- not just during the campaign -- justifying why they are doing what they are doing. Passing their legislative agenda takes more effort and time. Since they have to work harder, in pure efficiency terms -- output per unit of work -- they are less efficient.

But governing is also about fair representation, accountability and transparency. And, here, PR wins hands down. Moreover, since every vote counts, PR systems tend to have higher turnout. Because the election on June 28 was one of the most competitive in years, yet drew a turnout heading toward a record low, we cannot ignore this.

Does anyone else get the impression that pressure is mounting on Ottawa to address Canada's real democratic deficit?

[maplesyrup]

Give your respective heads a shake over this from another place:

As were the Quebec Conservatives, don't forget: 300,358 voters with no representation. Much worse, frankly, than the 99,754 Saskatchewan NDP voters left with no representation, or the 121,361 Alberta NDP voters with no representation (what? those Neanderthals in Alberta? More of them voted NDP than those nice Saskatchewan people? Does Ralph Klein know?) 

And the 184,367 Toronto Conservative voters with no representation were also screwed, which must be frustrating for them when they see their party portrayed as a redneck outfit with no support in civilized places like -- well, like Toronto, or Montreal for that matter.

Please just ignore the spoof "Neanderthals" and "civilized places" comments.

[DAC]

Please just ignore the spoof "Neanderthals" and "civilized places" comments

Do I have to?I thought they made the point very well.