On changing how Canadians vote

[Argus]

I'm sure there are no lack of major parties like the CDU in Germany or Likud In Israel that would love FPTP.

Israel would not be in the mess it's in if it weren't for PR.

[ToadBrother]

Israel would not be in the mess it's in if it weren't for PR.

Israel's problem has as much to do with sharp social and political divisions, not to mention a pretty small parliament.

But Germany uses a similar system with no difficulty that I can see.

[eyeball]

I'm sure there are no lack of major parties like the CDU in Germany or Likud In Israel that would love FPTP.

Are they actually arguing for it and pointing to the success of right of center parties in Canada to dominate everyone else with as little as a third of the people's support?

[ReeferMadness]

STV actually fits with what I had proposed earlier. There would have to be some modification though. PEI, with its four constituencies (already too many) would not be ideal bout would have to work. Other provinces could be split into large urban and rural constituencies with, for example, Manitoba ending up with 2 (probably 1 for Winnipeg and 1 for rural Manitoba). These constituencies would contain a number of members based on their population (there would have to be a cap in their size - say 10 members) but a floor would be difficult given places like PEI and the territories which would be defacto AV or FPTP depending on how we organized it. The counting method I'm kind of neutral on. I think the most simple one possible would be best. Elections and their mechanisms have to remain accessible.

I'm going from memory but I did some reading when STV was proposed in BC and recall that the math generally works better when there are odd numbers of representatives and proportionality gets better as the magnitude increases. However, you quickly run into diminishing returns. I recall 7 being proposed as an optimum point of tradeoff between district size and proportionality.

[ToadBrother]

Are they actually arguing for it and pointing to the success of right of center parties in Canada to dominate everyone else with as little as a third of the people's support?

I doubt it. I just imagine they wish they could gain a majority in their parliaments with far less than 50% support. Since they are never going to be able to change their electoral systems, there's not much point in publicly moaning about it. Besides, there is some advantage to having all the fringe elements on your side of the political spectrum sitting in other parties, rather than poisoning your's.

[ReeferMadness]

It's a valid question given how often we're told what a mess PR makes of other countries.

Anti-proportional rep types always point to Italy and Israel as examples (never Germany or Sweden) of what will happen under PR.

I've never heard of any successful public vote to return to FPTP. However, STV was used provincially in Alberta and Manitoba for decades. Shamefully, the parties in power just decided on their own to go back to FPTP.

[ReeferMadness]

Israel would not be in the mess it's in if it weren't for PR.

Unless you have some actual evidence to back up that statement, I'll just assume it's random claptrap.

[ReeferMadness]

Israel's problem has as much to do with sharp social and political divisions, not to mention a pretty small parliament.

But Germany uses a similar system with no difficulty that I can see.

They are not similar. Israel uses a closed party list system and Germany uses MMP.

[ReeferMadness]

I can't speak for Evening Star, but for me, the objection is that party list representatives have no constituency. They are pure party apparatchik who owe nothing directly to voters, and everything to their party.

Which sounds exactly like our current MP's - especially Conservatives.

STV or instant run off systems preserve the notion of an elected representative with an actual geographical constituency.

STV improves proportionality but IRV doesn't. In fact, IRV can produce less proportional results than FPTP.

[Smallc]

Which sounds exactly like our current MP's - especially Conservatives.

I don't think so. From what I hear, caucus meetings are sometimes very interesting.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think so. From what I hear, caucus meetings are sometimes very interesting.

Not according to a guy who was actually there.

Certainly he does not miss the regular weekly caucus meetings. “It’s a completely scripted agenda. It’s more of a pep rally than anything. There are no votes, no motions. It’s just a briefing.” Working within that system availed him nothing. His salaries disclosure bill was “voted for by every member of caucus.” But when the PMO withdrew its approval, “caucus support disintegrated instantly.”

[Evening Star]

The main problem with FPTP is lack of proportionality (and all of its attendant issues). MMP addresses it by assigning the regional MP's in such a way as to correct the imbalance.

If it is true that electing MPs via FPTP produces an imbalance that needs to be corrected, I would prefer that the way we elect those MPs actually be modified so as to reduce the imbalance, instead of preserving it and adding extra MPs chosen from party lists to try to 'correct' a fundamental problem. STV (Hare-Clark method) would address this and minimize wasted votes, if I understand it correctly.

However, the problem of disproportional party representation is mainly a problem because parties have so much control over MPs in the first place. If parties were less important than individual reps, this would become a less significant issue.

Others have complained about it creating 'two tiered' representation (1 type of MP directly elected and 1 indirectly elected).

Yes.

If you really want MP's to be more autonomous, then you'll need to change more than the voting system. You need to change the political culture and perhaps even legislate how parties behave. Parties have a tendency to centralize power because it's easier to control the message that way.

Yes, and, to me, this might be more pressing than changing the voting system. Anyone elected from a party list would certainly have to be responsible to the party, though, which would not help.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Evening Star

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, and, to me, this might be more pressing than changing the voting system. Anyone elected from a party list would certainly have to be responsible to the party, though, which would not help.

You concern could be alleviated through the use of "open lists" (where voters select preferred candidates as well as preferred parties). Unfortunately, it seems that the Ontario proposal had "closed lists" (where you vote for the party and the party determines which candidates are selected).

Closed lists give much more power to the parties.

[Evening Star]

The main problem I would see with FPTP in a multi-party system is wasting of votes. I think STV addresses this more effectively than MMP.

[ReeferMadness]

For anyone who's interested here is a good overview of STV, including strengths and weaknesses.

[ReeferMadness]

There is a lot of concern here over the use of party lists and the degree of control that it gives to parties. While I agree there is a concern, I think it might be somewhat overstated, particularly compared to FPTP.

Under FPTP, unless you are an active party member (and only a small percentage of the population are0, you have no control over your local candidates. Since most people vote for a party or a leader, they have a choice between accepting whatever candidate is chosen or voting for a party they don't like.

When voting from an open list (whether it's MMP, party list or STV), you have a choice of several candidates from that party. So, I would posit that open list systems provide more choice, not less.

[Argus]

Anti-proportional rep types always point to Italy and Israel as examples (never Germany or Sweden) of what will happen under PR.

I can tell you that in both countries PR is allowing a growing support for far right groups to build in their parliaments, as it is in a number of other European countries, including France. And a big part of the reason is the ineffectiveness, incompetence, the oh-so-precious political correctness, and the staggeringly expensive bureaucracies of so many European governments.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

I can tell you that in both countries PR is allowing a growing support for far right groups to build in their parliaments, as it is in a number of other European countries, including France. And a big part of the reason is the ineffectiveness, incompetence, the oh-so-precious political correctness, and the staggeringly expensive bureaucracies of so many European governments.

So let me get this straight, you're attributing the far right and bureaucracy to PR systems? You don't think there could be other factors.

There's a point at which someone's narrative is so simplistic and so self-serving that it's tantamount to a falsehood.

[Evening Star]

Under FPTP, unless you are an active party member (and only a small percentage of the population are0, you have no control over your local candidates. Since most people vote for a party or a leader, they have a choice between accepting whatever candidate is chosen or voting for a party they don't like.

This is a problem with the party system, not a problem with FPTP. There is nothing about FPTP that even necessitates the existence of political parties.

[eyeball]

Apparently it's up to voters to to solve the party system problem. How is still a bit of as mystery, we're all supposed to join the political parties and devote our lives to charging at windmills changing the system from within or some such thing.

[ReeferMadness]

This is a problem with the party system, not a problem with FPTP. There is nothing about FPTP that even necessitates the existence of political parties.

It's less of a problem with STV and open list systems; because voters can choose which of the candidates to vote for. Under FTP, you can only choose or reject the person the party chose for you.

[ReeferMadness]

Apparently it's up to voters to to solve the party system problem. How is still a bit of as mystery, we're all supposed to join the political parties and devote our lives to charging at windmills changing the system from within or some such thing.

In democracy, ultimately the power (and responsibility) rests with the citizens. We have the government we deserve. If people spent a quarter of the time on serious issues that they devote to watching hockey, we might get somewhere.

[eyeball]

Perhaps instead of mandatory voting everyone should do a stint in a political party - we could have an independent or undecided "party" for people who don't wish to join an existing party. But everyone has to put at least two years service...like a military draft.

[ReeferMadness]

Perhaps instead of mandatory voting everyone should do a stint in a political party - we could have an independent or undecided "party" for people who don't wish to join an existing party. But everyone has to put at least two years service...like a military draft.

That's a way better idea than mandatory voting.

To me, the idea of making someone who has no interest cast a ballot is ridiculous. But maybe, if you made them work for a party, they would become educated on the political process and some people would learn to care.

[eyeball]

Maybe it would help dilute/refresh the pools of real career apparatchiks that gravitate towards politics and themselves and almost become a force unto themselves.

I've volunteered on local governance boards, society/association boards (even founded a couple) and public committees much of my adult life and it was very often the same faces putting in the time alongside me. Eventually it wears thin and like a lot of others I just kind of burned out. I still get the odd call to get back on board, so to speak, but...maybe if I was getting paid I'd feel differently.

There really is a lot of need out there for people.