NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[Mighty AC]

Another point. Conservative voters will lose power from the voting schemes being discussed here. They are politically more distant from the Liberals and the NDP than those parties are to each other. Also, the Liberals+NDP together take more than 50% of the vote together. ( That also makes me think they would merge at one point, but that's another discussion. )

The Conservative voters of Canada would definitely lose what little power they have had. They would never support such a thing as PR.

PR generally leads to more party participation, not amalgamation. In my opinion we would see the CPC split into a centrist (PC) and right wing (Reform) offerings. The parties at the center would attract the lion's share of the vote, but, by removing the need to vote strategically more support would flow to Reform, NDP and Green parties than we see now. In the end, as in the past, we would likely see PC and Liberal governments. Without majorities they will have to cooperate with other parties on an issue by issue basis.

[Michael Hardner]

You can sit here and talk about this nightmare situation where tiny coalitions get to make absurd policies, but it's no more absurd than a party with less than 40% of the popular vote sitting in a majority position, able to pass whatever legislation it wishes because backbenchers are toothless and FPTP is unrepresentative.

It's preferable for that 40% vote to be used in a majority situation than for a fringe element to have major influence IMO.

What exactly do you think would happen if one of those "fringe" parties (which are wings of larger parties now anyway) got their policies endorsed by the larger parties?

They get their influence, though. With their size, it leaves another door open for candidates to be bought off.

TimG is scaremongering because his political view is the minority view in this country, yet the party he supports is sitting on a majority of the seats in the legislative house.

That is true today. But a party that polls close to the liberals has, since 1970, had power about 3 times. The end result is that they have had two major chances to influence policy: in the 1980s and today.

His party doesn't work towards consensus and is largely adversarial even on legislation that fits its political ideology.

But this party will be out of government at some point. The PR changes being proposed will permanently change how government works.

Think about this, when the Liberals and NDP were talking about a coalition with BQ support, do you honestly think the Liberals and NDP would accept a motion for secession from the BQ? They would lose the BQ's support before becoming the governing party that broke up the country, even if it meant going down in a confidence motion.

No, but they would accept changes that may not register on the political radar, that still undermine the best intersts of the country as a whole.

I'm tired of this political illiteracy that claims coalitions are undemocratic when they are integral part of the Westminster system.

But the system works because there are majority governments at some times, minority governments at other times.

[Michael Hardner]

PR generally leads to more party participation, not amalgamation. In my opinion we would see the CPC split into a centrist (PC) and right wing (Reform) offerings.

The Liberal-NDP vote together regularly surpasses 50%, so we would see them working together to the point where they would become indistinguishable. I think that's what would happen.

[TimG]

Older, established democracies are seeing declines across the board but the fact remains that, on average, countries with PR see higher participation rates than countries with 'winner take all' single member plurality systems.

So? The data says declines are happening for reasons that have nothing to do with the voting system and, in the New Zealand case, the data said the change to MMP did nothing to stop this decline.

IOW, you have no data to support your assertion that changing to a PR system will increase participation rates in Canada.

Edited October 3, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

IOW, you have no data to support your assertion that changing to a PR system will increase participation rates in Canada.

To add: declining interest in politics has some more more obvious remedies than to redesign our whole system.

[TimG]

What he worries about as "fringe" is the consensus that could be reached by like-minded parties, which represents the views of like-minded voters.

The problem with "fringe" parties is they tend to populated by ideological obsessives who have no desire or need to look at the big picture (the greens and the federal NDP are good examples). They pick up votes from people who are similarly ignorant of the big picture or are simply looking for a place to park their votes.

More importantly, the FPTP systems forces the major parties to go after the center so most of the CPC policies are acceptable to the majority of the population even if they did not vote for them. OTOH, PR would force the the major parties to cater to the extremes which will result in a lot more policies which are unacceptable to the center. i.e. it would only serve to increase the disconnect between what voters want and what the politicians do.

The last aspect of PR which is lost is accountability. If a government makes promises and gets a majority but fails to live up to those promises they can pay a heavy price. But with perpetual minorities political parties will never feel obligated to keep their promises because they can always argue their 'coalition partners made them renege'.

Think about this, when the Liberals and NDP were talking about a coalition with BQ support, do you honestly think the Liberals and NDP would accept a motion for secession from the BQ? They would lose the BQ's support before becoming the governing party that broke up the country, even if it meant going down in a confidence motion.

Maybe not that extreme. But the potential for blackmail is huge. There are plenty of behind the scenes payoffs that the BQ could have extorted for continued support. You are naive if you don't see it.

I'm tired of this political illiteracy that claims coalitions are undemocratic when they are integral part of the Westminster system.

Coalitions when they happen are fine. But we are talking about changing the political system in ways that not only ensures that all governments will be coalitions but changes the incentives for parties - changes that will result in worse governance - not better IMO. Edited October 3, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

Not every party is as ridiculous, spiteful, and unprofessional as the Harper Conservatives.

Citation?

Link?

Next you'll be claiming we are all created equal.

[overthere]

Conservative voters will lose power from the voting schemes being discussed here.

Yes, and that is the only reason it is discussed. The losing side always seeks scapegoats, this time it is the 'system' that has failed. Actually convincing citizens to vote for your party has not worked out well for 'progressives'**, so this old dog gets dragged around the streets again.

You never hear a hue and cry for PR from the NDP on those rare occasions they actually govern, the opportunity to actually make it happen seems to suddenly disappear off the agenda then.

** love that term, 'Progressive'. If you're not progressive, then you must be regressive! The Politics of Insult, another thing they profess to abhor except when convenient for themselves.

[cybercoma]

Citation?

Link?

Next you'll be claiming we are all created equal.

Citation? Link? For what? Opinion? Give me a break.

[waldo]

Actually convincing citizens to vote for your party has not worked out well for 'progressives'**

** love that term, 'Progressive'. If you're not progressive, then you must be regressive! The Politics of Insult, another thing they profess to abhor except when convenient for themselves.

you're welcome!

.

[jbg]

The assembly is only as fractured as the electorate. People's views should be represented and those representatives should work to compromise.

That's fatuous logic. To push my example of the "JBG Party" a bit further, let's say I can get enough votes to elect on member. And let's say I'm willing to coalesce with the right or the left, and that willingness is mutual. I would have an outsize influence, regardless of the "views" of the voters for the real parties.

That is exactly what happens in Israel. It is why the extremely religious parasites people are exempted from Army service. It is also why women can't pray in certain places. The various "religious parties" have only a few Knesset members but their influence at coalition building time is outsize.

[cybercoma]

That's fatuous logic. To push my example of the "JBG Party" a bit further, let's say I can get enough votes to elect on member. And let's say I'm willing to coalesce with the right or the left, and that willingness is mutual. I would have an outsize influence, regardless of the "views" of the voters for the real parties.

Speaking of fatuous logic, this is what the kids call a non sequitur fallacy. You're making an awful lot of assumptions there. First, that you can get enough votes to be elected to a seat. Second you assume that another party will want to work with you, even though you're only a single vote and have fringe beliefs. Finally, you assume that you will have any say in how that party governs, that your single vote will somehow be the tipping point that brings the government down in a confidence motion. Therefore it does not follow that you will have "outsized influence" on the other parties. They could quite simply ignore the barking dog in the corner. For you to have any influence at all, let alone outsized influence, the stars would have to be aligned perfectly, which is highly unlikely.

That is exactly what happens in Israel. It is why the extremely religious parasites people are exempted from Army service. It is also why women can't pray in certain places. The various "religious parties" have only a few Knesset members but their influence at coalition building time is outsize.

Do you think Israeli politics has even the remotest resemblance to Canadian politics? Edited October 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[jbg]

Second you assume that another party will want to work with you, even though you're only a single vote and have fringe beliefs. Finally, you assume that you will have any say in how that party governs, that your single vote will somehow be the tipping point that brings the government down in a confidence motion.

First of all you're assuming fringe beliefs. Let's say my belief is that everyone should have a good time? And the party organizing the coalition needs one or two more votes? Think I don't have an outsize influence?

Do you think Israeli politics has even the remotest resemblance to Canadian politics?

If rep-by-prop were adopted it would have more resemblance. Today, it doesn't except both are democracies. Edited October 4, 2014 by Charles Anthony
fixed mal-formed quotes

[ReeferMadness]

That's fatuous logic. To push my example of the "JBG Party" a bit further, let's say I can get enough votes to elect on member. And let's say I'm willing to coalesce with the right or the left, and that willingness is mutual. I would have an outsize influence, regardless of the "views" of the voters for the real parties.

That is exactly what happens in Israel. It is why the extremely religious parasites people are exempted from Army service. It is also why women can't pray in certain places. The various "religious parties" have only a few Knesset members but their influence at coalition building time is outsize.

Did you really just refer to fatuous logic? Oh, the irony. I barely know where to start with this tripe but just let me make a few obvious points:

1. To prevent some hypothetical case of "outsize influence", you want us to continue to accept a situation where 37% of voters elect a party where power is centralized to the point where we have a virtual dictatorship. Tell me again about the horror of "outsize influence".

2. Israel is the bogeyman for the anti-PR crowd. Israel's problems are due to it being a magnet for religious fundamentalists coupled with a party list system with a very low threshold. It takes just 2% of the population to elect a representative. Most PR system start to elect around 5%. And Israel would be a mess under any system.

3. Extremists and wackjobs can be elected in any system. Rob Anders anyone?

4. FPTP accentuates regional differences which is a big problem in countries (like Canada) where there are deep regional divisions. For elections, the bloc received way too many seats due our broken electoral system.

Need I go on?

[Smallc]

Why should people who have enough support to have a representative mathematically not have one? How is that more fair?

[Mighty AC]

So? The data says declines are happening for reasons that have nothing to do with the voting system and, in the New Zealand case, the data said the change to MMP did nothing to stop this decline.

IOW, you have no data to support your assertion that changing to a PR system will increase participation rates in Canada.

Right. PR has higher turnouts worldwide but that's not data, because all systems are in decline. wow.

[TimG]

Right. PR has higher turnouts worldwide but that's not data, because all systems are in decline. wow.

1) The absolute percentage of people voting cannot be compared across countries because civic culture affects these numbers.

2) The New Zealand numbers, OTOH, can be compared to themselves and we see a small blip when MNP was introduced followed by decline that mirrors the decline in other western democracies. IOW - MPP did not stop the decline which is most likely due to a much larger cultural shift within western democracies.

These numbers mean you have no rational basis for your claim that PR systems increase voter turnout. The differences absolute turnout between countries are most likely due to differences in civic culture that have nothing to do with the voting system.

Edited October 6, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

1) The absolute percentage of people voting cannot be compared across countries because civic culture affects these numbers.

2) The New Zealand numbers, OTOH, can be compared to themselves and we see a small blip when MNP was introduced followed by decline that mirrors the decline in other western democracies. IOW - MPP did not stop the decline which is most likely due to a much larger cultural shift within western democracies.

These numbers mean you have no rational basis for your claim that PR systems increase voter turnout. The differences absolute turnout between countries are most likely due to differences in civic culture that have nothing to do with the voting system.

No, these numbers mean you're ignoring that voting is generally in decline worldwide, as Mighty AC pointed out and that you're cherry picking New Zealand despite all the other examples of PR having higher turnout.

[Michael Hardner]

No, these numbers mean you're ignoring that voting is generally in decline worldwide, as Mighty AC pointed out and that you're cherry picking New Zealand despite all the other examples of PR having higher turnout.

So PR shouldn't be expected to reverse the decline then. This is what I've heard as a reason in favour of PR, that it would remedy non-participation.

[Mighty AC]

1) The absolute percentage of people voting cannot be compared across countries because civic culture affects these numbers.

2) The New Zealand numbers, OTOH, can be compared to themselves and we see a small blip when MNP was introduced followed by decline that mirrors the decline in other western democracies. IOW - MPP did not stop the decline which is most likely due to a much larger cultural shift within western democracies.

These numbers mean you have no rational basis for your claim that PR systems increase voter turnout. The differences absolute turnout between countries are most likely due to differences in civic culture that have nothing to do with the voting system.

You don't think the voting system can influence civic culture? I think the likelihood that a vote will play a role makes a difference.

This study on voter turnout in New Zealand made a few interesting discoveries about voter behaviour.

1) Immigrants to NZ rarely vote. Plus, NZ grants voting rights to non-citizens if they have been working or living in the country for 1 year. This represents a portion of the 50 year decline.

2) MMP has lead to an increase in younger voters, but also a minor decrease in older voters and a significant decrease in aboriginal voters. Nonpolitical factors influencing the turnout of old voters include the frequent riding boundary changes that occurred over the first few elections under MMP as they worked out the kinks.

3) Voting is habitual. Once people stop, it is difficult though not impossible to get them to start again.

4) The positions of the two dominant parties have been very similar for a long time, which hinders turnout.

5) Voter turnout can be largely predicted by this formula:

These are © the costs of voting (which includes the collection of

information to underpin a choice), the benefits from the vote if one’s candidate or

party were to win according to a rationally self interested utility-maximising calculus

( , and the probability of a vote having an effect (p). The simple formula c + (b*p)

expresses the probability of a person casting a vote, the idea being that people weigh

the benefits they might gain if their candidate or party wins against the probability

that their vote might be pivotal.

NZ has not halted the decline that began under FPTP, but the increase in younger voters with now stable riding boundaries and an increased belief that a vote is meaningful shows that a halt in the decline is possible.

Would a proportional system help the dismal turnout figures in Canada? I don't know, maybe not immediately. However, PR systems do encourage young people to vote and since voting appears to be habitual this should lead to better long term participation numbers.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

No, these numbers mean you're ignoring that voting is generally in decline worldwide

So? I am testing the hypothesis that "PR increases voter participation" by looking at the NZ numbers before and after the introduction of MMP. The NZ data shows that adopting MMP did NOT increase voter participation.

You may wish to construct another hypothesis that PR slows the decline which is happening for other reasons - but you would need to do a trend analysis on datasets from all western democracies to determine if the data supports that hypothesis. That is work I am not willing to do which is why I stated that there is no data to support the assertion as opposed to saying the assertion is wrong.

That said: the original hypothesis that 'PR increases voter participation' is clearly false and PR supporters that make that claim are being dishonest.

[TimG]

You don't think the voting system can influence civic culture? I think the likelihood that a vote will play a role makes a difference.

This is what you want to believe. That does not mean it is true.

Would a proportional system help the dismal turnout figures in Canada? I don't know, maybe not immediately. However, PR systems do encourage young people to vote and since voting appears to be habitual this should lead to better long term participation numbers.

Again: nothing but speculation and wishful thinking.

I know there is one way to get young people to vote: wait for them to get older. People's attitudes change as they age and get experience and not voting when young may be a transitory phrase.

[overthere]

Citation? Link? For what? Opinion? Give me a break.

For your laughable claim that "Not every party is as ridiculous, spiteful, and unprofessional as the Harper Conservatives."

Dd somebody hijack your account for that post?

C'mon back it up and name the party. You can just invent one if you cannot name a real one.

[cybercoma]

You asked for a citation, which usually accompanies facts. I gave an interpretation and my opinion of the Harper Conservatives, based on their actions, such as cramming as much legislation as possible into the budgets and limiting debate on more items than any past government in the history of Canada. They've also setup shadow MPs in ridings (see: Irwin Cotler's situation). I stand by what I said and it doesn't need a citation because I'm not quoting anyone on that. It's bizarre that you would ask for a reference to my own opinion. Do you know what references are for?

[cannuck]

Did not have time to read all pages, but from skimming, I don't think anyone hit the key to what would be needed to make representation truly by population (and OF the people) - elimination of political parties.

Voters in North America, and I expect around the world have been able to see through how rule-by-special-interest is enabled by partisanship and the resulting institutions of political parties. You need to spend some time around politics in India to see openly what really goes on behind closed doors in our more "enlightened" society.

In my perfect world, the basic rule of government would be to do what I was told by Sir Roger Douglas when I asked him how he could do such "Conservative" things as he had to do to save his country's economy with the fact he was Minister in a Labour government - "we simply removed privilege". That is the very opposite of what the whole purpose of political parties is - to provide a platform for dispensing special privilege.