FPTP bad! MMP worse! Vote 1, 2, 3... Stops vote-splits, overruns & phony majorities

The following is a brief summarisation of the ills of MMP, based not on emotional arguments, or empty wishful thinking, but a step by step logical argument.

The outcry resulting from Ontario's (and Canada's) democratic deficit is what drove politicians to mandate the "Citizens Assembly" process, in the first place. While the Assembly process never got down to defining the democratic deficit and its causation, the systemic root cause of the democratic deficit is made possible through the use of a single mark ballot with a relative majority count. As a system, a relative majority count is very vulnerable to vote-splitting the voice of the majority voters into smaller pieces.

In virtually all democratic decision making processes, the minimum gold standard of democratic self rule is "Majority Rule". Reframing electoral outcomes by the measure based on the candidate receiving "more votes than any other" (a relative majority system), provides the illusion that a minority supported candidate, who can be in direct opposition to the interests of the majority, will more likely to be seen and accepted by the majority as one of their "own" duly "elected", despite their Tojan Horse credentials.

Turning directly to MMP, Mixed Member Proportionality as a system, neither tackles nor addresses the democratic deficit but enshrines it more deeply! Here's how:

As statistical background, the two most widely recognised proponents of MMP, FairVote and EqualVoice, along with an overwhelming majority of participants in the Ontario Assembly process ALL agreed and found fptp unacceptable. For example, Fairvote's submission to the Assembly stated fptp is a "dysfunctional voting system that violates core Canadian values"! EqualVoice's said "We believe the Citizen's Assembly should NOT recommend retaining our present first-past-the-post system"!

However, MMP at its core, is really fptp repackaged and then given a new name! Currently, citizens elect 107 members to parliament using the defective and vulnerable to vote-splitting system, fptp. Under the proposed "MMP" system, instead of electing 107 by the defective fptp system, the citizens are short-changed and will continue to use the same defective fptp system, but only be able to elect 90 fptp candidates! And as a foot-note, 90 members elected by the dysfunctional fptp system will be less representative of the citizenry than 107 elected by the dysfunctional fptp system!

Returning to "vote-splitting" for a moment, vote-splitting describes what happens to the votes of the majority, whereby the voice of the majority is split into smaller pieces, so that an elite minority representative candidate appears to have more support than any of the majority's vote-split candidates. Vote-splitting splits the voice of the majority and has a corresponding effect of on the composition of parliament's members which is called "overruns".

"Overruns" are where a party's % share of SEATS elected is greater than the % of VOTES received. When a party gains a majority of seats, that is called majority government, but when that party has achieved that status through overruns and does not have the support of a majority of voters, that is truly a phony majority and feeds the democratic deficit. The overruns resulting from Canada' 2006 election are so extensive, that when all 308 MPs together would agree on something, these 308 MPs all together only have the support of 48% of the voters who voted in Canada AND actually voted for these 308! (For supporting details please see the paper and spreadsheet available at http://www.eduardhiebert.com/er )

Adding insult to injury, the party proportional fix component of "MMP", then, in perpetuity, without a mandated right of a citizen review or referendum, gives parties the right to stack parliament, already stacked with "overruns", with a further 39 party appointed members, members who are not subject to direct elections even by the "dysfunctional (fptp) voting system that violates core Canadian values"!

With undeniable certainty, under "MMP", parliament with a smaller number of fptp elected members (90 instead of 107) plus the new party proportional fix, where the parties appoint a further 39 members to parliament (altogether 127), such an MMP parliament has with certainty a greater democratic deficit mandate than the current standalone fptp system.

And the proposed MMP referendum is already modifying people's loyalties. Wendy Bergerud, when formerly a member of the BC Citizen Assembly process, summarised the situation this way "Would you agree that MMP mixes two of the worst systems together: constituency seats selected by plurality votes and closed-list PR where the party leadership chooses who is at the top and their list?"

Now, what has not been explained and begging public explanation is how how FairVote and this same Wendy Bergerud, who is now a member of Fairvote's "15-person National Council... responsible for setting strategic direction and policies for Fair Vote Canada", how together she and FairVote as one voice can now endorse the very system earlier denounced by FairVote and Wendy when it was called fptp.

And once, as per above, attention is specifically drawn to that which is dysfunctional within fptp, namely a single mark ballot with a relative majority counting system, a solution as the next step becomes almost self-evident. The deficiency of a single mark ballot relative majority system can be fixed easily, simply and with just an eensy-teensy-weensy tiny little change to the present system. Allow people to vote preferentially, vote 1, 2, 3... and count the ballots with the requirement that the candidate elected must minimally have the confidence of, and be representative of "majority rule". Even the simple manual redistributive method of counting would eliminate almost all, if not all of the current vote-splitting, including the corresponding overruns that are so offensive and contributive to the democratic deficit.

And lastly, and certainly not least, not only would such a preferential balloted parliament be more accountable to the people, a parliament of 107 of such members would not only be more accountable than a 127 "MMP" parliament, but a 107 fptp parliament BE MUCH LESS COSTLY TO ONTARIO'S TAX BASE THAN AN 127 MMP MEBER PARLIAMEN! It also goes almost without saying, that Ontarian's would get considerably more bank for their buck with a 107 vote 1, 2, 3... member parliament than either a 107 fptp parliament or its more expensive repackaged 127 MMP parliament!

Later, once this more democratic parliament is in place, further measures of reform such as true proportionality, such as gender parity, minority underrepsentation, etc., could much more properly and more correctly be addressed than with this current bunch driving the process and would immeasurably be preferred to giving the parties a proportional fix to then hang out carrots of proportionality, as would certainly be the case under a party focused proportional fix.

Eduard Hiebert

quote:Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
The following is a brief summarisation of the ills of MMP, based not on emotional arguments, or empty wishful thinking, but a step by step logical argument.

Could you clarify whether people are allowed to respond to you in this thread?

If so, should we send our posts to you for pre-approval, to ensure that they are not composed of emotional arguments or empty wishful thinking, but only step by step logical arguments?

Just trying to establish the rules for those who wish to respond.

I prefer MMP over STV. That is just me. It doesn't matter anyways. I have a vote on electoral reform tomorrow, STV is not on the ballot. It will likely be the only vote on electoral reform in my life-time and it will lose badly.

Fidel, thanks for your observations, I will make reply below,

wage zombie,

While not the first to make a post in reply, I appreciate your humour and extend my welcome as the first one to have come as close as you have to being on topic.

Regarding your aptitude for spelling and prose, while I wonder why you would find it necessary to bring it up here, but if you or others would like to make further review and do so privately, I would be all ears.

Regarding the substance of your reply, if someone gives you a choice of food between rat poison and mouse poison, what would you do? Based on your logic, seems all citizens together have no right to refuse this silly offer and demand honest and genuine reform?

While the argument posed is a slippery one of suggesting its at least a change, please be reminded that change is not synonymous with progress. The likelihood of jumping from the pot into the fire much more likely under MMP than despite the horrible dysfunctionality of fptp.

Then regarding your question on the theoretical. Is it theory or fact that both Fairvote and EqualVoice have said fptp is dysfunctional and should be replaced? Is it theoretical or fact that under MMP, instead of electing 107, the citizens will only elect 90 members and this through fptp? FairVote, EqualVoice and the Citizen Assembly under the watch of a former judge went to great pains to obscure that fact and now that I pointed it out in my submission, you have still not noticed it? By the way this adds up to the fptp portion of MMP being even less citizen representative than the dysfunctional fptp of 107 members.

I could do the same regarding the party proportional fix, but instead please read the paper and get back to me.

More on point, if your do the basic math regarding Mulroney, under fptp we got Mulroney. Under MMP regarding the fptp elections we would still have gotten Mulroney... Under the party proportional fix, because of the overruns pointed out in my submission, none of the majors including the NDP would get any.

Even one of the most blatant supporters of MMP within the thread
Does voting for MMP hurt democracy?stated and I quote: "Neither the Liberals nor PCs can guarantee a spot, because the largest party in a 70/30 MMP system (we can see this in action in North Rhine - Westphalia) often gets no list seats at all, or maybe one or three. Even with more that 30% list seats, there was the famous case of the opposition CDU leader in one province who lazily ran list-only, swept to power with a huge majority of local seats, and unexpectedly found himself Premier without a seat."

What the poster did not draw attention to was why that happened? This poster frequently espouses this and that about NZ's MMP system, however NZ studies clearly advance the concept of "overruns".

Overruns can only happen in a relative majority system, never in a majority system. Both the fptp post component and the party proportional fix component, are both vulnerable to overruns, guaranteed as the German MMP example shows in spades if you dig just a bit deeper.

In closing, since you liked the Martin example, why would you still make the same mistake and except empty platitudes and promises of how good MMP is, when not in theory, but with substantive information, I have pointed to all kinds of holes that hold not water in the "yes" to MMP camp.

All the best as make your choice as to which elevator button to press.

Eduard

Well, the reality is the MPP is not going to pass. So, if you actually believe in electoral reform you should vote for it, to indicate that you support electoral reform in some form or other. If MPP fails by a substantial margin, and say doesn't even hit 40%, you will never hear about proportional representation in Ontario, in your life time.

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

October 10, 2007 A.D.
First my apologies for the duplicate posting. The two computer systems, mine and Rabble did not remain in grid-lock synchronisation...

Fidel, I appreciate you capturing the essence from mine and that fptp continues to be front, right and centre, but renamed as MMP in MMP!

You also question why it still is given breath: "It's the only reason I can imagine for allowing the ghost of FPP to haunt us in modern times."

Richard Fobes math wizard and author of a book the Citizens Assembly had in their possession but never used is also the person behind VoteFair (to be distinguished from FairVote like jing from jang (sp?)) can give a much more succinct answer than I. Please see VoteFair and while the section on Iraq is another good example why fptp and MMP does not work, the answer behind the question "Is the Proportional Representation (PR) voting method being considered for Ontario, Canada an improvement?" gives answer to your question.

While I might get great howls and guffhahs here for saying there is little reason to rely on the Ontario's CA's forensic study, when they helped obscure the fact that fptp is still fptp in MMP, (remember VoteFair's insight), instead, I will give you one example of how dysfunctional MMP is.

Assume 100% of the people are completely fed up with the party hacks and vote independent. This means they get 90 seats! Agreed? And since indepedent by OCAER definition is not a party, the independents can't get a single party proportional fix seat of the 39, even though they got 100% of the votes. However if just one person voted conservative on the party proportional fix portion, that translates into 100% of those votes would be filled by 39 conservatives!!!!!!

While this example would never happen, the math shows how skewed the system is and how much MMP (that is fptp) favours the same old same old...

In the previous post I forgot to add and may it is just as appropriate here, with Mulroney at 40% and MMP, the stacking portion of MMP could still have tipped into his hads when a fake new party that is riddled with conservatives (Harris formerly) Liberals with May, and have this green salamder get the party PP vote and then be in gridlock step with whoever and still end up with same old same old. However, under vote 1, 2, 3... Mulroney would NEVER have happened! Just do the math.

My concluding suggestion!

As the referendum question only gives you a choice to support either fptp or MMP (wonder who wins $'s by restricting citizens choice to these two choices) and once this fake reform referendum is put to bed, with many more people now informed how bad fptp really is, begin demanding one very small tweak to the existing system.

Allow people with the current ballot to vote 1, 2, 3... and demand a majority count system. Stops all vote-splits, overruns and phony majorities IMMEDIATELY!

And if you are really innovative and good at strategic voting, you could even start to vote strategically that way right now. The ballot would likely be called spoiled but under a judicial review in some of the key ridings and then based on the charter of rights and freedoms challenge, you could point out that all citizens are equal but that in a fptp system, 40% of the people are more equal than 60% as the 40 and not the sixty get to choose their representative....

Have a good election day and question whether the results reflect what the people want, or whether the system only provided the illusion of some minority having more support than the majority which was split in two. Think v 1, 2, 3... and have a new day!

Thanks for digging into the submission of postive electoral reform as the real option!

Eduard

I'll be voting to get more pompous asses on babble.

Oh it is of course a conspiracy.
Perhaps before you throw around such comments you should find out how babble works. In the short time I have been here it is pretty clear it renews itself overnight in some way and starts fresh.
I started a thread yesterday and no one has posted in it since. It must be the babble 'man' keeping my important ideas down.

sssshhhh
Don't tell I voted for MMP too. I even talked some people into voting for it.
I know, I know---
I am PURE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!
(Insert evil laugh here)

And as Ontario declares itself the child poverty capital of Canada, the Liberals gain a few seats while dropping in popular voter support over the last election. Way to defeat MMP ya sssssstupid bassteds.

Someone pointed out that while 51% o the population voted for politicians 54% voted on the referendum issue. How is this possible or reasonable? You;d think there would be many more spoiled ballots onm the referendum than the election proper.
Is this true?

Latest unofficial figures from Elections Ontario:

Election:
4,421,628 of a possible 8,380,702 (52.8%)
27,680 of 27,679 polls reporting

Referendum:
4,279,569 Valid Votes Reported
27,661 of 27,679 polls reporting <--those last 18 polls will surely put OCA-MMP over the top [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

So, slightly more people voted in the election than the referendum, but not as much of a difference as you'd think. I shudder to think about how many voted in the referendum without having a single clue about what was being asked.

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

I'm not sure about that. 36% voted in favour, not a bad start considering how the campaign and the requirements for adoption were so blatantly rigged against it.

Remember, this time those who are on the side of electoral reform can live to fight another day, and don't have to worry about being hung, jailed without trial, or transported to Australia, as has happened in the past.

Certainly there was no "rigging" in the sense of ballot-box stuffing, false numbers, switching ballots, and so on. Nothing like that would have been needed to defeat electoral reform, anyway.

In another sense, the whole process was "rigged". We had:

• a 60% threshold of victory for MMP and a 40% threshold for FPTP
• a poorly-worded question
• the Citizens' Assembly report NOT being sent to every household
• the CA being hampered from promoting its work (the government stopped printing its brochure)
• an "eduction campaign" from Elections Ontario that was weak and did not properly explain the new system or why it was being proposed
• political parties prohibited from campaigning on the issue, ensuring that it was not discussed, or drowned out amid the election din
• donations to MMP campaigns (pro or con) were not tax deductible
• media that was generally either indifferent or outright hostile, in spite of a few individual columnists who supported it
  

So, many voters knew very little about the referendum, and viewed it as a choice between:
(a) the easy-to-understand current system which seems to be working fine (as far as they know), or (b) a hard-to-understand strange new system.

Many others hadn't heard much, but they had heard bits about "appointed members", "more power for party hacks", "more politicians", "less local representation", and so on. Much of this is either untrue, or a distortion of the truth, but the CA proposed a model that was open to these kinds of claims, and many in the media and elsewhere were happy to pounce.

In retrospect, the 37% for MMP was no surprise under these conditions.

And really, with a system less vulnerable to certain attacks, the report properly distributed, a better education campaign, and so on, electoral reform might have managed to hit 50%, but I don't think it could have made 60%. Ontario is "less ready" for reform than BC or Quebec. Ultimately, reform will happen and work well in some province, then another, and then... only then will we see it in Ontario.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]