NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[cybercoma]

The election in New Brunswick proves once again that representative democracy isn't very representative. Of all the ballots cast, 52% of them went to losing candidates.

Despite getting twice the popular vote as the Greens the NDP won zero seats, while David Coon became the second Green Party MLA elected in all of Canada. This was a surprising upset. David Coon is an excellent politician and a kind man. To be honest, I'm happy to see him in there. He will work hard for the people of Fredericton South.

Nevertheless, First Past the Post is significantly broken. Every fifth New Brunswicker cast a ballot for one of the third parties and between them they only won a single seat. The makeup of the legislature looks absolutely nothing like the way people voted in the election.

It's time to discuss how our representative democracy is not actually representative.

[waldo]

per 308:

As the polls had suggested would be the case for over a year, Brian Gallant's Liberals won the New Brunswick provincial election and will form a majority government. They took 27 seats and 42.7% of the vote, with the Progressive Conservatives taking 21 seats and 34.7% of the vote. The Greens pulled off an upset by getting their leader, David Coon, elected. The party took 6.6% of the vote province-wide, a very respectable result for a Green party over and above their seat win.

The New Democrats, despite taking 13% of the vote, the party's best performance in its history, did not win a seat or even come particularly close to winning one. This is an anomaly of the first-past-the-post system, and suggests that the strategy of focusing on a small number of seats, perhaps even one, is the better strategy to follow when a party has no realistic shot at a broader breakthrough.

[Shady]

The system is perfectly fine the way it is. Each riding should have its own say as to who it wants to represent them. Regardless of sore losers and sour grapes.

[Michael Hardner]

Regional representation is the benefit of our current system.

[Mighty AC]

Regional representation is the benefit of our current system.

Regional representation, though seemingly useless as of late, is still achievable within a proportional system.

[WWWTT]

The election in New Brunswick proves once again that representative democracy isn't very representative. Of all the ballots cast, 52% of them went to losing candidates.

I'm going to have to agree with you.

Perhaps using a run off vote in each riding.

I feel it's not really fair to decide an government on just one ballot. Should be done in a couple votes.

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

The last provincial election in BC there was some talk of introducing something different than a FPTP system which, I may need some correction on my recollection of how it was to work, but it would have allowed me et al to pick 1st choice, 2nd, etc. so that my vote had more "legs" than it currently does. It made sense to me but if I recall it wasn't suggested in time for it to go through the proper hurdles to be adopted. Maybe next time.

[Michael Hardner]

Regional representation, though seemingly useless as of late, is still achievable within a proportional system.

How ?

[jbg]

Nevertheless, First Past the Post is significantly broken. Every fifth New Brunswicker cast a ballot for one of the third parties and between them they only won a single seat. The makeup of the legislature looks absolutely nothing like the way people voted in the election.

It's time to discuss how our representative democracy is not actually representative.

Israel and Italy are countries that demonstrate the worst of the alternative, rep-by-prop. There are hundreds of political parties, many fringe or one-issue or even joke parties. Why should anyone able to meet a minimal threshold, oftne 3% of the vote, be able to possibly dictate the makeup of the government. In Israel, for example, the ultra-religious party usually has a stranglehold on power since it's support is usually needed to form a government. Thus those human jokes for citizens get exemption from army duty and their wives work while they "study."

It's a farce and a heartbreak.

[Mighty AC]

How ?

For a sparsely populated but regionally diverse nation like Canada, Mixed Member Proportional would be the most appropriate electoral system. Each voter would cast two ballots. One for their local representative and one for the party they would like to govern.

I would like to see the first ballot, which is used to elect the local representative, be a single transferable vote system in which voters rank the candidates. Each winning local MP receives a seat but list MPs are added to ensure the house fairly closely matches the popular vote, tracked by the second ballot. These MPs are each assigned ridings controlled by another party thus providing representation for citizens that would otherwise have none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Edited September 24, 2014 by Mighty AC

[ReeferMadness]

The last provincial election in BC there was some talk of introducing something different than a FPTP system which, I may need some correction on my recollection of how it was to work, but it would have allowed me et al to pick 1st choice, 2nd, etc. so that my vote had more "legs" than it currently does. It made sense to me but if I recall it wasn't suggested in time for it to go through the proper hurdles to be adopted. Maybe next time.

You're referring to Single Transferable Vote (STV). It was selected by a Citizen's Assembly in BC. I'm not sure what you mean by it not being suggested in time.

It was voted on twice. It lost due to the requirement that it pass by a supermajority of 60%. The first time 58% of the people voted yes and the second time (mainly due to a thoroughly dishonest no campaign run mainly by senior NDP insiders) just 39% voted yes. STV is a brilliant system that produces proportional results without having to mathematically 'force fit' the results the way that MMP requires.

It does provide regional representation but the riding size is much larger than FPTP. Under STV, you might have as many as 7 representatives for your riding, greatly improving the odds that at least one of them will be someone who shares your political ideas.

[ReeferMadness]

Regional representation is the benefit of our current system.

Yes, our current system is based on the premise that people who live in a geographic area all have similar interests and similar political views. It's the very finest in 17th century political thinking.

These days, when most people have more in common with friends and family who live timezones away than their next door neighbors, you might think that we could move beyond the antiquated view that constituencies should be based on geography. Tragically, you would be wrong because it seems that people just lack the imagination to be able to get their heads around anything else.

[On Guard for Thee]

Thanks for joging my memory and providing the link.

[ReeferMadness]

For a sparsely populated but regionally diverse nation like Canada, Mixed Member Proportional would be the most appropriate electoral system. Each voter would cast two ballots. One for their local representative and one for the party they would like to govern.

I would like to see the first ballot, which is used to elect the local representative, be a single transferable vote system in which voters rank the candidates. Each winning local MP receives a seat but list MPs are added to ensure the house fairly closely matches the popular vote, tracked by the second ballot. These MPs are each assigned ridings controlled by another party thus providing representation for citizens that would otherwise have none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

MMP would be a great improvement on what we have today but I think that STV is a superior system.

[ReeferMadness]

The main reason that more countries don't have PR is that major parties benefit from FPTP. They are reluctant to allow PR to be considered and are adept at torpedoing the initiatives if they do happen to make it on the ballot. The requirement (by Gordon Campbell's Liberals) that STV get a 60% supermajority is a good example. I find it bizarre that the UK could have been broken up by 50%+1 but STV needed to hit a very high 60% threshold.

[Bryan]

Politics is local. FPTP is by far the most egalitarian, most representative system. Each region gets the person that the most people in that region selected as their representative.

Even run-offs are a needless extra step. If the second place guy is "good enough" for you, and you know damn well that they guy you are voting for won't win, why even have the "first ballot"? Just consider the advance polls the first ballot, and the actual election the run-off and vote for the "good enough" guy in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

For a sparsely populated but regionally diverse nation like Canada, Mixed Member Proportional would be the most appropriate electoral system. Each voter would cast two ballots. One for their local representative and one for the party they would like to govern.

So, the local candidate that wins is elected, however regions still do not get power if they aren't well populated. For example, cities would have more power than they do today. Agricultural issues, and such would receive much less attention.

Other potential problems: the creation of a new class of representative that is not tied to a local region, the complexity of the system, endless coalition governments built on compromise, gridlock.

And the main problem: this solution has no problem. The real problem is that the NDP needs more seats.

MY main problem is when people call this "the fairness system" or somesuch tripe. It's a thoughtless piece of propaganda that indicates if you're not willing to engage in a risky re-do of our entire electoral system, then you support unfair practices. Really, I think that the backlash from implementing something like this could well be a swing to the right by middle-of-the-road Canadians to counteract the effects of this.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, our current system is based on the premise that people who live in a geographic area all have similar interests and similar political views. It's the very finest in 17th century political thinking.

These days, when most people have more in common with friends and family who live timezones away than their next door neighbors, you might think that we could move beyond the antiquated view that constituencies should be based on geography. Tragically, you would be wrong because it seems that people just lack the imagination to be able to get their heads around anything else.

You raise a good point, but I do think that people still vote based on geography, especially rural vs. cities, and province to province. The people of Quebec vote together, sometimes in a bloc.

[jbg]

For a sparsely populated but regionally diverse nation like Canada, Mixed Member Proportional would be the most appropriate electoral system. Each voter would cast two ballots. One for their local representative and one for the party they would like to govern.

I would like to see the first ballot, which is used to elect the local representative, be a single transferable vote system in which voters rank the candidates. Each winning local MP receives a seat but list MPs are added to ensure the house fairly closely matches the popular vote, tracked by the second ballot. These MPs are each assigned ridings controlled by another party thus providing representation for citizens that would otherwise have none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Do any countries use this system? Which ones?

[jbg]

The main reason that more countries don't have PR is that major parties benefit from FPTP.

See this post here (link) for my reasoning as to why this isn't a bad thing.

They are reluctant to allow PR to be considered and are adept at torpedoing the initiatives if they do happen to make it on the ballot. The requirement (by Gordon Campbell's Liberals) that STV get a 60% supermajority is a good example. I find it bizarre that the UK could have been broken up by 50%+1 but STV needed to hit a very high 60% threshold.

Both the Canadian and American amending formulas have various similar hurdles to fundamental change.I think that revolutionizing a country's system of government should require more than 50% + 1 (vote). That is the problem I have, for example, with Quebec separatism. A major change should require close to a 2/3 consensus.

[cybercoma]

Regional representation is the benefit of our current system.

I'm not necessarily calling for PR. We could have a single transferable vote system or something. But it's simply not representative of how people vote.

I'm happy for Mr. Coon. He's an amazingly kind person and it's incredible that he beat out the sitting Minister of Energy and Mines, as well as a former Liberal cabinet minister who was running for the NDP this time. Great show.

[cybercoma]

The system is perfectly fine the way it is. Each riding should have its own say as to who it wants to represent them. Regardless of sore losers and sour grapes.

The Conservatives lost by a total of 450 votes across 6 ridings. The makeup of the legislature does not at all represent the wishes of the electorate.

[cybercoma]

Israel and Italy are countries that demonstrate the worst of the alternative, rep-by-prop. There are hundreds of political parties, many fringe or one-issue or even joke parties. Why should anyone able to meet a minimal threshold, oftne 3% of the vote, be able to possibly dictate the makeup of the government. In Israel, for example, the ultra-religious party usually has a stranglehold on power since it's support is usually needed to form a government. Thus those human jokes for citizens get exemption from army duty and their wives work while they "study."

It's a farce and a heartbreak.

It's really no more farcical than lobbyists handing envelopes of money to US senators and congress-persons. At least those "fringe" parties who meet the lower threshold are democratically elected.

Edited September 24, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Politics is local. FPTP is by far the most egalitarian, most representative system. Each region gets the person that the most people in that region selected as their representative.

It's not the most representative though. There are MLAs with less than 40% support from their constituents in office now. That's not representative at all. The parties had very different platforms. If you look at that pie chart I posted, the platforms supported by the electorate are not at all represented in the legislature. It's the same issue federally, even when Chretien was getting his majorities. I'm not sure how it makes sense ethically that a party with less than 40% of the vote (the provincial Liberals here were higher than that, but Chretien wasn't and Harper wasn't last time either) gets unrestricted free reign over legislation.

Now to be fair, the backbench is supposed to hold the executive accountable, but the party lapdogs drink their Kool-aid and read the PMO's talking points like good little puppies. It's insulting to the very concept that you're holding up. They're not the voice of their constituents, not even when they do receive the most votes. But especially in this case where they get less than 50% support from their constituents.

[cybercoma]

So, the local candidate that wins is elected, however regions still do not get power if they aren't well populated. For example, cities would have more power than they do today. Agricultural issues, and such would receive much less attention.

Other potential problems: the creation of a new class of representative that is not tied to a local region, the complexity of the system, endless coalition governments built on compromise, gridlock.

And the main problem: this solution has no problem. The real problem is that the NDP needs more seats.

MY main problem is when people call this "the fairness system" or somesuch tripe. It's a thoughtless piece of propaganda that indicates if you're not willing to engage in a risky re-do of our entire electoral system, then you support unfair practices. Really, I think that the backlash from implementing something like this could well be a swing to the right by middle-of-the-road Canadians to counteract the effects of this.

We have that system federally already. It's called bicameralism. You have regional representation in the upper chamber and proportional representation in the House. That's why I think the Lieutenant Governors should appoint Senators for their regions and not the Governor General, but that's a whole other issue (one which I strongly disagree with the NDP on).

Edited September 24, 2014 by cybercoma