Proportional Representation (BC)

I was thinking the other day about PR voting and how party lists are made and used for proportionality seats. When the Ontario referendum to adopt PR went so badly people felt the main culprit was that the proposed system had closed party lists that voters could not control hence "Giving more power to the parties" which is easy to get people angry about for some reason.

From that lesson it seems that every system PR advocates have proposed since have used open lists with voters picking names in their region to represent them for a list seat.  But I think that is over compensating.  A case can definitely be made that having a closed party list of one (1) for the party leader would not be opposed by the electorate as much as a full list system.  Voters usually know who the party leaders are.  In fact the leader is the one who influences their vote the most, they often have far less knowledge about who their local candidate is.  So I think they would support a system that validates their instinct to vote on the basis of leaders and giving those people they know a seat in the legislature.

One of the side benefits of having a party seat that belongs to the leader of the party is that it avoids situations where a newly elected party leader has to do the dance of trying to win a seat in a bi-election.

So I think having a system that has a party leader seat reserved for those getting a threshold of votes has multiple benefits that would be easy to get voters to buy in on this time.

I think it would be rare that a single seat would be enough to make things proportional.  I think you need a mix of ways to pick proportionality seats, maybe open list, maybe best loser, maybe STV seats from a larger riding.

And I think you and the electorate are right to be suspicious of how a closed party list system would be shady. But on the other hand, maybe it could be useful for knowing exactly who a party would have as it's primary cabinet posts too. Finance Minister could be a second name on a closed party list system.

I believe that in every country that uses closed lists, the list is published ahead of time. The electoral authorities don't just go to the parties after the fact and say "Give me 12 names to fill the seats your party earned."

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Just like now in BC where the Greens are part of the government mix, Having the NDP part of the mix will be better than having no NDP in the mix

Really?  I can hardly imagine any BC NDP supporter who wouldn't be just a wee bit happier if those Green seats were actually NDP seats, and the NDP didn't have to hand constant tributes to their saviours. 

I am an NDP supporter who is okay with Greens getting NDP seats (Calling Oak Bay and Saanich NDP strongholds is a stretch).  In Richmond I have always had a soft spot for Michael Wolfe and have worked with him on many local initiatives.  While I have never voted Green, if he won I would be very very happy for him.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Thanks.  Not to be unduly suspicious, but is the list an ordered list?  IOW, if it has 20 names on it, and proportionality requires 12 of those to be assigned seats, will those seats be given to #1 - #12 on the list?

Those seats would be ranked #1 - 12. Usually the party leader is ranked first and likely cabinet ministers are ranked higher up on the list. The list is usually decided by party members before an election. With a closed list you can also have lists that alternate between men and women in a "zippered list" to provide greater equity. Minority groups can also be placed higher on the list also to provide greater equity. A strength of closed lists is that it can be easily used for affirmative action. Unfortunately that aspect of closed lists isn't easy to convey to the public during a referendum because of the complicated nature of electoral systems. I had to take a political science course to gain an adequate understanding of electoral systems. Most people don't have the time or inclination to study electoral systems so referendums on electoral systems are usually won by the side that has the best propaganda. Here in BC the Liberals will back FPTP and the NDP and Greens will support proportional representation. I think most voters will simply take their cue from the political party they support the most and vote accordingly.

NorthReport wrote:

Question: right now rural votes carry much more weight than urban votes; in a PR system can these over-weighted rural Generally speaking RIGHT-WING votes lose their advantage that they presently have over urban votes I mean how stupid can the NDP be if is doesn’t do away with these rural voting advantages

It depends on how many regions the new system of proportional representation has. Rural areas would maintain their over-representation within a PR system if they still made up regions separate from the urban areas. On the other hand, if the province's new PR system had no regions, the rural areas would no longer be over-represented but all serious versions of PR for BC have included at least four regions. The devil is in the details as far as balancing rural/urban representation.

Vaughn Palmer: NDP pushes electoral reform, but keeping an 'open' mind; November 23, 2017:

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-ndp-pushes-elec...

Quote:

VICTORIA — In preparing for public consultations on the coming referendum on electoral reform, the NDP government recently recruited a panel of academic advisers who were mostly critical of the status quo.

One of the four was Max Cameron, director of the centre for democratic institutions at the University of B.C., who is on record as believing the current system is in need of reform.

“It tends to create false majority government,” declared Cameron on the eve of a UBC-hosted forum in 2016. “We’ve had many governments in Canada that have not had the majority of the popular vote but win a majority of the seats which gives it 100 per cent of the power.”

He went on to argue that proportional representation would better represent the public and force parties to work together.

“We might, in fact, get more progress on a range of policy issues,” said Cameron. The current system encourages “politicians to exaggerate their differences, highlight wedge issues that divide rather than unite Canadians, and place partisanship ahead of the common good.”

JKR wrote:

It depends on how many regions the new system of proportional representation has. Rural areas would maintain their over-representation within a PR system if they still made up regions separate from the urban areas. On the other hand, if the province's new PR system had no regions, the rural areas would no longer be over-represented but all serious versions of PR for BC have included at least four regions. The devil is in the details as far as balancing rural/urban representation.

The Liberals are falsely claiming that PR means closed province-wide lists for MMP's top-up seats. Therefore, anyone answering the questionnaire should comment that the MMP system on the ballot should be with open regional lists, not province-wide closed lists.
Here's an example:
http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/2017/05/what-would-bcs-2017-election-results....
 

 

Put the proposed system to the people. 

What's that you say? There is no proposed system?

Oh, ok. Well then, decide on a system and put that to the people.

​And that's where the devil lurks. There are almost as many PR systems as there are countries using them. 

On top of that, strangely enough, the PR countries of Europe are dsimissed as being ground zero of neo-liberal economics. Even in quite stable countries, Germany for instance, PR has brought problems.

Germany had an election two months ago, and still no government has arisen from that election. Portugal is another example of a country having a difficult time forming a government after an election.

What it looks like to me is that as long as things are going along swimmingly, no problem electing governments. However, when problems arise, consensus shatters, and the PR system lends itself to chaos.

It was precisely in such a situation that Hitler was able to become Chancellor of Germany.

Way to go, PR!

Quote:

So where is it?

It's behind Door #2.

Assuming there's not a goat behind Door #2.

Rev Pesky wrote:

To top it all off, this is going to be a mail-in ballot, so only those with a keen interest are going to bother replying. I think every PR supporter should be telling the government that they won't accept the results of a vote unless at least 50% of the eligible voters are in favour.

Why do I think that's not going to happen?

 

How often does the winning candidate or winning party in a single-member plurality (FPTP) election receive 50%+ of the eligible votes? The last BC election saw the BC Liberals "win" the most seats with only 1/4 of the eligible votes. So the BC Liberals came within a hair of winning yet another phoney FPTP "majority" government with just 1 in 4 eligible votes and just 2 in 5 votes cast.

If we keep FPTP here in BC, the BC Liberals are going to go back to winning phoney FPTP majority governments through vote splitting between the BC NDP and BC Greens. The BC Liberals are putting everything they have to keep FPTP because they know they need it in order to form phoney "majority" governments through vote-splitting. If the BC Liberals want to win a true majority government they should have to win a majority of the votes.

From JKR:

How often does the winning candidate or winning party in a single-member plurality (FPTP) election receive 50%+ of the eligible votes?

​I think the point I was trying to make is that PR supporters go on and on about 'phoney majorities', but seem willing to accept such a phoney majority to change the electoral system.

I think, like yourself, PR supporters think some sort of PR will guarantee a progressive coaltion government in BC. As noted in the article posted by Centrist above, that is unlikely to happen.

I'll also point out that one of the arguments people on this site have made in favour of the UK leaving the EU is the neo-liberalism of the EU countries. All of which, by coincidence, are PR type electoral systems.

Another problem is that when things get difficult; large influx of refugees, poor economic performance or whatever, PR systems tend to fracture, making electing a government difficult. Even in the relatively stable Germany, they have yet to have a government from elections two months ago.

Rev Pesky wrote:

​I think the point I was trying to make is that PR supporters go on and on about 'phoney majorities', but seem willing to accept such a phoney majority to change the electoral system.

I don't think any PR proposal suggests that the percentage of abstaining voters be represented by vacant seats in Parliament. (I find the "But if we count those who [i]didn't[/i] vote..." argument quite tiresome, except in the case of massive voter suppression, because guess what? They didn't vote. Staying home to deny an election legitimacy in the press is a tacit admission you would've lost.)

Rev Pesky wrote:

I think, like yourself, PR supporters think some sort of PR will guarantee a progressive coaltion government in BC. As noted in the article posted by Centrist above, that is unlikely to happen.

It'll guarantee a government more representative of how people in BC voted. As I've said before, if BC wants to vote 70% for a coalition of Christian Heritage, Social Credit, Confederation of Regions, and the Canadian Nazi Party, well, H.L. Mencken said democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'll also point out that one of the arguments people on this site have made in favour of the UK leaving the EU is the neo-liberalism of the EU countries. All of which, by coincidence, are PR type electoral systems.

Another problem is that when things get difficult; large influx of refugees, poor economic performance or whatever, PR systems tend to fracture, making electing a government difficult. Even in the relatively stable Germany, they have yet to have a government from elections two months ago.

Every argument of this type boils down to "A government that's representative of how people actually vote is bad, because it doesn't reflect my desired policy objectives. We should have a non-representative system, because while it may result in the wrong decision, at least it goes at that wrongness full-throatedly without petty squabbling." This is also, incidentally, the argument for monarchies and single-party systems.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From JKR:

How often does the winning candidate or winning party in a single-member plurality (FPTP) election receive 50%+ of the eligible votes?

​I think the point I was trying to make is that PR supporters go on and on about 'phoney majorities', but seem willing to accept such a phoney majority to change the electoral system.

I think, like yourself, PR supporters think some sort of PR will guarantee a progressive coaltion government in BC. As noted in the article posted by Centrist above, that is unlikely to happen.

I'll also point out that one of the arguments people on this site have made in favour of the UK leaving the EU is the neo-liberalism of the EU countries. All of which, by coincidence, are PR type electoral systems.

Another problem is that when things get difficult; large influx of refugees, poor economic performance or whatever, PR systems tend to fracture, making electing a government difficult. Even in the relatively stable Germany, they have yet to have a government from elections two months ago.

All of the leading social-democratic countries in Western Europe use PR. That's not a coincidence.

When all is said and done, Germany will have a government that represents the majority of its voters. That can not be said for multi-party FPTP elections.

From cco:

Every argument of this type boils down to "A government that's representative of how people actually vote is bad, because it doesn't reflect my desired policy objectives. We should have a non-representative system, because while it may result in the wrong decision, at least it goes at that wrongness full-throatedly without petty squabbling."

​I neither said this, not implied it. My argument against PR voting is that it too has it's faults, and in the end is not beter (and in fact can be considerably worse) that FPTP.

Quote:

All of the leading social-democratic countries in Western Europe use PR. That's not a coincidence.

You've narrowed the pool down to "leading" "social-democratic" countries in "Western Europe".  I think that's also not a coincidence.

JKR wrote:

I confess that I think countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Ireland are generally more advanced than Canada. These social-democratic countries seem to benefit from having more consensual forms of government than Canada. Canada has a more competitive form of governance so it makes sense we are still saddled with single-member plurality. PR would require more cooperation and compromise within our society.

Or it is due to the culture of the people in those countries. Germany is destroying the EU with its austerity prescription for countries like Greece and Spain.

Neoliberalism can thrive under any system of government.

 I am under no illusion that PR will bring an end to the wrong guys winning.  As a resident of Richmond-Steveson I have voted every election knowing with some certainty that my vote is meaningless.  I would for starters like to have an MLA close to me that counted on my vote to the limited extent one vote can be considered.  On top of that I want more voices in the legislature. Kind of the Svend Robinson effect. People who more and more are being squeezed out of the established parties (even the Greens to some extent).  We need more out of the box thinking, and a system that gives voice to minority opinions.

Whether the left or right gains is not as important to me to how the mix of elected members will change and how this will effect the political conversations.

Rev Pesky wrote:

 I do know this. with an FPTP electoral system, the comprimises are made before the election, within the so-called big tent parties.

JKR wrote:

This is only true when there are only two political parties in an FPTP system.

 

All the main parties keep somewhat to the centre so they are all big tent parties.

JKR wrote:

When all is said and done, Germany will have a government that represents the majority of its voters. That can not be said for multi-party FPTP elections.

Within our system the elected government represents all constituents and each MP represents all constituents within their riding regardless of who voted for whom. Parties don't represent voters their MP does. PR makes it seem as though we are electing parties.

If citizens democratically prefer FPTP then the results of the election are valid regardless of the percentage of votes each party recieved. I like having a clear party to hold to account for decisions. I don't want them to have to wheel and deal giving them excuses for doing/not doing stuff. Because Trudeau has a majority he can't weasel out of responsibility for his decisions.

Pondering wrote:

If citizens democratically prefer FPTP then the results of the election are valid regardless of the percentage of votes each party recieved. I like having a clear party to hold to account for decisions. I don't want them to have to wheel and deal giving them excuses for doing/not doing stuff. Because Trudeau has a majority he can't weasel out of responsibility for his decisions.

The ballot doesn't say "Do you want to punish the party in power?" It asks you to vote for an MP. Moreover, 60.5% of Canadians voted against your "clear party", and it still has a majority government. That's the problem. You and other FPTP supporters are essentially conjuring an after-the-fact narrative where "Canada", as a single organism, votes to reject a government, an ability it possesses only because of the capricious nature of FPTP, which it'd be giving up if the electoral system were representative.

If a majority of Canadians vote for a party under PR, it'll get a majority government. If not, it won't. And the wheeling and dealing that led to the Liberals propping Harper up for 6 years of minority governments under FPTP didn't seem to bother you.