Tragedy of the Commons

[JamesHackerMP]

We've tried various measures at curbing lobbying in Washington. They've gotten around quite a bit of them. But some lobbying is beneficial. Not all of them come from Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

[JamesHackerMP]

Hate to nitpick, but I just wanted to point out that the thread title "Tragedy of the Commons" is a little misleading (or it has a double meaning that you might not have intended.)

The term "tragedy of the commons" is an economic term that refers to a situation where you have some resource that has no single owner. Because of that, individuals may use that resource over and above what they might otherwise be entitled to (or what is sustainable)

Picture 3 people walking along the street and they see a pie... The first person cuts it in half and takes a piece. (After all, why not? Free pie! And he didn't take it all). The second person takes the second piece (And why not? He's not doing anything the first person didn't do.) The last person gets nothing, because the resource has been used by the first 2.

In the real world, "tragedy of the commons" could be applied to situations like fishing stocks (where a single fisherman may not have an incentive to limit his catch, resulting in a depletion of the species as each fisherman individually tries to maximize their catch). It could even be applied to environmental situations (where the common resource is a clean environment.)

I know. It originally refers to public grazing rights in England. I just saw a book review on amazon.com called "Tragedy on the Commons" (making a pun of the word).

[eyeball]

Privatization is the proposed solution to the tragedy of the commons but that results on the tragedy of enclosure whereby opportunities are enclosed within the hands of a few owners...usually wealthier owners who lobbied for the privatization - in private of course.

[JamesHackerMP]

Right.

But here's my question: even though you have a bizzilion parties (so do we, but they hardly garner even a miniscule percentage of the vote), in the average riding, what percentage of the vote would the Liberal and/or Conservative take? In a typically Liberal riding, or in a typically Conservative riding?

My question about proportional representation: where could I find out what the % of the popular vote was? According to Wikipedia (and I'm not telling you anything you don't know, I'm just on one of my usual "statistical kicks") the following are the % of the 338 seats in the Commons, counting the vacant seat as a distinct seat (in other words, using 338 instead of 337 as the divisor).

Lib = 54.14%

Cn = 30.00%

NDP = 13.02%

BQ = 2.96%

Green, Indepenent, and Vacant each = 0.30%

Obviously the % of seats won would have been different if PR were used. Where could I find that out?

And this is, of course, assuming I didn't **** up using my calculator. That's always a possibility with my mathematically-inept mind.

Edited July 30, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[TimG]

My question about proportional representation: where could I find out what the % of the popular vote was?

Lots of data here: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&document=index〈=e

[JamesHackerMP]

I haven't been able to find what I was looking for. I wanted a percentage of the popular vote for each party which was on the ballot in all 338 ridings.

[JamesHackerMP]

oops, I found it on Wikipedia LOL

I also started to reply about if the House did PR, but somehow I accidentally hit a key which backed me up and erased everything I typed.

Edited July 30, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

Ok here is my point. If the House of Commons used PR, here is what the House would look like as a percentage of the popular vote:

Liberal = 134

Conservative = 109

NDP = 67

Bloc Qu. = 16

Green = 12

Needed for majority = 170/338

So Mr Trudeau would have been 36 seats short of the promised land. So, where exactly does he go for those votes? Minority government? Coalition with NDP?

[Bonam]

So Mr Trudeau would have been 36 seats short of the promised land. So, where exactly does he go for those votes? Minority government? Coalition with NDP?

Yes, those would be some of his options. What's your point though? I think pretty much everyone understands that PR increases the occurrence of minority governments/coalitions.

I think this is actually one of the strengths of FPTP, you get periodic actual significant changes in government, whereas with PR you just get an endlessly shifting coalition which mostly consists of the same entrenched individuals forever.

[JamesHackerMP]

I think this is actually one of the strengths of FPTP, you get periodic actual significant changes in government, whereas with PR you just get an endlessly shifting coalition which mostly consists of the same entrenched individuals forever.

Agreed. as an international observer who has studied politics to an extent, to go from FPTP to PR in the Commons in an attempt to improve the political system is like going "Out of the frying pan and into the fire."

Coalition governments are undemocratic and allow the leaders of the participating parties to betray the principles that got them elected in the name of "compromise". Minority governments, well, they don't last too long in Canada...

Besides, how would you know who "your" MP is with PR?

[The_Squid]

Coalition governments are undemocratic

Not at all...

and allow the leaders of the participating parties to betray the principles that got them elected in the name of "compromise".

As if compromise is somehow a bad thing....

Minority governments, well, they don't last too long in Canada...

Harper's minority lasted several years.

Besides, how would you know who "your" MP is with PR?

It wouldn't be difficult to know who represents the riding.

[overthere]

Ok here is my point. If the House of Commons used PR, here is what the House would look like as a percentage of the popular vote:

Liberal = 134

Conservative = 109

NDP = 67

Bloc Qu. = 16

Green = 12

Needed for majority = 170/338

So Mr Trudeau would have been 36 seats short of the promised land. So, where exactly does he go for those votes? Minority government? Coalition with NDP?

Where does he go for the votes and seats?

To a new electoral system of ranked or preferential ballots, of course. There has been a slight delay while he gets that pesky Senate organized to ram through a Parliamentary vote on this topic, but look for it early in 2017.

[JamesHackerMP]

Nice. How do ranked/preferential ballots work, anyway? An Aussie explained them to me, once, and my head was spinning. Perhaps you could make sense of them.

My point though is, how do you know who "your" MP is? In the US, you can always go to your own congressman or senator for help with this or that thing. But if we had a House of Representatives allotted entirely by PR, there'd be no way to know who would be responsible for which group of constituents, specifically.

[JamesHackerMP]

Really? Harper's lasted several years? I had been told that the average Canadian minority government lasted about a year or so.

[JamesHackerMP]

It wouldn't be difficult to know who represents the riding.

How, though?

[Big Guy]

Where does he go for the votes and seats?

To a new electoral system of ranked or preferential ballots, of course. There has been a slight delay while he gets that pesky Senate organized to ram through a Parliamentary vote on this topic, but look for it early in 2017.

What is your argument against a ranked ballot system?

[JamesHackerMP]

A ranked ballot system is different from straight PR, non?

[Big Guy]

A ranked ballot system is different from straight PR, non?

A ranked ballot system is one kind of PR:

http://www.123london.ca/howitworks

The others:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm

Edited August 2, 2016 by Big Guy

[JamesHackerMP]

Would Canadians know what to do with it? I'm not saying you aren't intelligent enough to figure it out, but after what, 42 federal general elections with FPTP, all of a sudden you would have this weird s**** like PR and ranked ballots. Would your people, used to the old way of doing things, suddenly adjust with little or no problems understanding exactly what they were doing and how when they go into the voting booth?

[jacee]

Sure.

[Vega]

Ranked Balloting/Instant-runoff voting most certainly isn't proportional and isn't much better than first past the post in the long run. I would rather we have no reform than have have politicians pat themselves on their back with that system.

Another problem with proportional systems and even IRV is that the results take a long time to count, with election counting dragging on to a month or so. You can see this in Ireland.

Weak coalitions would also be a problem, and one that I would rather not have.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Vega

[Big Guy]

Ranked Balloting/Instant-runoff voting most certainly isn't proportional and isn't much better than first past the post in the long run. I would rather we have no reform than have have politicians pat themselves on their back with that system.

Another problem with proportional systems and even IRV is that the results take a long time to count, with election counting dragging on to a month or so. You can see this in Ireland.

Weak coalitions would also be a problem, and one that I would rather not have.

I disagree. With computers, the ranked ballot system the computations are instant. Also with the ranked ballot system I believe that more people will cast votes. At this time, the voter knows that casting a ballot for someone from an obscure party is a wasted vote but their second choice will probably be counted as to getting somebody from one of the major parties over the 50% barrier. Their participation will be influential in the final decision.

[JamesHackerMP]

Sure.

[JamesHackerMP]

Forgive me, my last post didn't go through because I was trying to do it from my smart phone.

I asked if Canadians would "know what to do with it" and jacee's answer was "sure". Exactly how sure are you Jacee? Has a national poll been taken about changing the method of election of the House of Commons from FPTP ridings, to PR or ranked ballots or God knows what else innovations? How can you be so sure?

[JamesHackerMP]

I disagree. With computers, the ranked ballot system the computations are instant. Also with the ranked ballot system I believe that more people will cast votes. At this time, the voter knows that casting a ballot for someone from an obscure party is a wasted vote but their second choice will probably be counted as to getting somebody from one of the major parties over the 50% barrier. Their participation will be influential in the final decision.

But wait, aren't Canadian elections counted by hand? Would the Canadian people sit idly by and hand control of their good old "hand counted" ballots and "let the machines take over" like so many American states have? Would Canadians stand for that? Again, it's not for me to tell you all what to do, I'm not Canadian. But believe me, after several years of computer counting, the State of Maryland went back to paper ballots again. They're "machine" counted, but like simple optical scanners, not "actual computers" per se.