Elections, gerrymandering and the expression of electoral will
Tue, 2007-01-23 16:47
#1
Elections, gerrymandering and the expression of electoral will
Tue, 2007-01-23 16:47
#2
(Pre note: I'm not trolling here, I won't snap and I won't be dismissive and I ain't a statistician so my analysiscan very well be a Garbage in sort of thing)
Over in this[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002240]th... things were said:
quote:
clockowork: I don't know if I'd call a 30 seat swing extradoinary (altough maybe that is, I don't know).
quote:
jeff house: Because the seats are gerrymandered, that won't really measure the swing. The vote split, 52%-45% was a swing of 5.5% towards the Democrats, while the Republicans were down 3.5%.
quote:
clockwork: Apparerntly the seat swing overstates the change... by my count, the 31 seat increase reprsents a gain of 7.1% for the Dems while the popular vote only increased by 5.4%. That's an amplification of almost a third. Fascinating. It still doesn't proove an "extraordinary rejection" [of Bush's Iraq war policy] in m mind though.
quote:
Papa Bull: Well, when you take into account the ridiculous incumbency rates of sitting congressmen it becomes a slightly more impressive change.
My problem is that gerrymandering in and of itself doesn't explain anything. Let my expand the argument:
1 The election was about Iraq
2 The war is [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=2786656&page=1]unpopul....
3 The seat gain in Congress is impressive since we expected to see more of a seat swing in a non-gerrymandered Congress.
On 2: I suspect polls from media outlets, polls for general consumption aren't automatically translatable to seat changes. Polls for public consumption try to get a crossection of the American publiuc. I guaruntee partisan pollsters don't even bother with that: they want polling data from likely voters.
On 1: just as I dismssed the Nations's original assertion in the other thread, why not just dismiss the concensus opinion that the election was about the war? Maybe it was just a dismissal of the way Bush is handling the war. I can beleive in death to the mullahs but think my Crusader president just isn't the leader I thought him to be (the gays still aren't dead, either). I'm upset with the war but do you really think I'll vote Democrat? I'll stick my head back in the ground (I don't see why this explaination can't be subbed for gerrymandering)
On 3: As PapaBull says, the swing is impressive when considering the 99% incumbacy rate but that very impressiveness undermines the gerrymand argument. Districts gerrymanded by Republicans should defenitely [i]not[/i] end up amplifiying a Democratic swing in the popular vote.
So, the question begs, is the 99% incumbacy rate a direct result of district gerrymandering? Well: if they were related, you'd think the popular vote could swing wildly while the seat changes in congress would be kept to a minimum (Yes incumancy rates are different than seats that switch parties but I's only got the data I have to work with):
Changes in popular votes between parties v Changes in Seat Count between parties (Congress)
1994 11% v 12%
1996 2.9% v 1.8%
1998 0.6% v 0.1%
2000 0.6% v .3%
2002 4.3% v 1.7%
2004 2% v .7%
2006 9% v 7.1%
All my data is from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_general_elections%2C_2006]Wik... (change in pop. vote is calculated by the difference in support of the current election(%) between the Rep and Dem parties minus the difference in support between the parties in the last election and if the majoites flipped I added.... I also ignored the independant vote changes).
Under a gerrymanded system, you'd think the left column should always be lower than the right which it is except for the Newt Revoltion. But, it also holds that as the vote change increases, the seat count increase as well. If gerrymandering wa a significant factor overall, in my mind this doesn't prove it.
Oh, and since I started talking about incumbancy rates, the average change in vote per election between parties is only 4.3%. If we assume the incumbancy rate is 99% for these elections, I might argue that this doesn't seem all that significant since the two rates are similar in the absolute sense (ie, if the vote isn't swinging why should an encumbant loose his seat?) and that maybe the real competitve races are where reigning incumbants (ie, popular ones) step down. Or are forced down. Or die( this point is complete conjecture, though).
So, to tie this all in, a seat swing of 30 is significant since the last time it happened has 14 years ago. One of the biggest opinion trends of the last five years is the crumbling supprt for the war so I'll even grant that 2006 was a repudiation of Bush in Iraq (ie: a reflection of change in democratic mood). I still hesitate to blame any of this on gerrymandering since I can think of substitute explainations [edit:] that dimish how much that crumbling support would translate to seat changes in Congress.
edit: some of the spelling and the last bit
[ 23 January 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Tue, 2007-01-23 19:12
#3
The winner takes all system, also called single member plurality or first past the post is to blame too. It is not just gerrymandering.
If the country was homogenous and it was a 2 party system, in SMP, one party would take ALL the seats on a 51% to 49% split.
So, please get any idea of voter percentages tallying neatly with elected representives out of your mind if you are looking at a smp system. There is not a mathematical relationship.
Tue, 2007-01-23 19:34
#4
No system I know of allocates 100% of the seats based on a simple majority. No country I know of is homogenous, and surely not the US. And I don't know why I should dismiss any mathematical trends based on a hypothetical homogonous coutry. If the argument is gerrymandering affects the seat outcomes in any given vote than I don't see why it couldn't be detectable through voting trends and such. If you dismiss the effects of gerrymandering, you're taking the viewpoint I'm currently arguing. Why dismiss my analysis as well?
Thu, 2007-01-25 22:45
#5
Ok, BC, gordon campbell win's 77 of 79. Thats pretty homogenous and stunning on 55% of the vote.
Pretty clear that first past the post screwed up.
And actually you are living in one of those countrys. GerryMandering is more useful in first past the post than PR systems because the country is not homogenous.
Your figures are not really relevent. Gerrymandering is one of the spoils of victory in the culture of politics in the usa. There is a lag between the initial win under their gerrymandered system until a bigger win under your gerrymandered system. Another thing you are not concidering is that voters know when they have been gerrymandered and dont bother to vote if they know they will lose in that area. And that effects voting figures locally.
The effects of gerrymandering are way more complicated than you suggest.
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]No system I know of allocates 100% of the seats based on a simple majority. No country I know of is homogenous, and surely not the US. And I don't know why I should dismiss any mathematical trends based on a hypothetical homogonous coutry. If the argument is gerrymandering affects the seat outcomes in any given vote than I don't see why it couldn't be detectable through voting trends and such. If you dismiss the effects of gerrymandering, you're taking the viewpoint I'm currently arguing. Why dismiss my analysis as well?[/b]
Thu, 2007-01-25 23:42
#6
Ah, so you are a PR supporter. I suspected as much. I'm not really arguing between different systems.. but hell, I'll do that argument too.
quote:
Brian White; Ok, BC, gordon campbell win's 77 of 79. Thats pretty homogenous and stunning on 55% of the vote
You're shifting the use of the term 'homogenous'. A homogenous country and a homogenous result are two distinct entities. And in BC.... the homogenous result means the winners are all the same which, essentially, is correct in the Campbell election. We are a homogenous country only in the sense we are all homo sapiens. A very diverse culture gave the Liberals a totality of the seats.
quote:
Brian White: Your figures are not really relevent. Gerrymandering is one of the spoils of victory in the culture of politics in the usa. There is a lag between the initial win under their gerrymandered system until a bigger win under your gerrymandered system
Well, Democrats had complete control of Congress for a long time and gerrymandered. They got kicked out in '94. Republicans had 12 years to gerrymand and lost contrtol of the House. How long does the effect of gerrymandering need in order to be seen? And if gerrymandering is a "spoil", it should obviously have a noticable effect on seat distribution. You dismiss my figures. If you actually are saying gerrymandering is a 'spoil', in what way could we tease out how gerrymandering would favour the ruling party? I'm arguing that gerrymandering should show up where votes change parties but no seats change hands. How do you characterize the effect of gerrymandering?
And is gerrymandering an effect in Canada as well? If it's a spoil of victory in the US, surely it should be a spoil of victory up here as well (since we share FPTP systems)
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election%2C_1926]Link you'll like, Brian White[/url]
Look under the conservative vote for Manitoba and how many seats they won with that vote.
quote:
Brian White: Another thing you are not concidering is that voters know when they have been gerrymandered and dont bother to vote
Oh, that is an interesting point. Do you think if the participation changes the distibution of votes changes?
I ask this because.... the participation rate between mid-terms and presidential eletions are, I would characterize, huge. And if you dismiss my figures one more time, I'll have to assume participation rates don't mater because the largest vote swings were in mid-term election years when the vote tends to be 30% less than presidential elections.
And Brian White: look up Texas.
PS: What does gerrymandering actually entail?
edited: I really ned a spell checkr
[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Thu, 2007-01-25 23:45
#7
Six million wasted votes last election. And 35 percent of the electorate were too pissed off at the 100 year-long legacy of the two old line parties to even bother voting. It was 40 percent for the FPTP election four years prior. Democracy is waning in North America.
Thu, 2007-01-25 23:58
#8
quote:
Fidel: Six million wasted votes last election.
Were those six million votes.... not counted? Thrown out? Spoiled? (I assume you're talking about the US of A)
quote:
Fidel: And 35 percent of the electorate were too pissed off
Are you really sure you want to stand by this statement? I just want to clarify before hand.
Fri, 2007-01-26 00:39
#9
It's all here at [url=http://fairvotecanada.org]http://fairvotecanada.org[/url]
Half a million Albertans voted for somone other than the reformaTories but elected no one.
More than half a million voted for the Green Party but sent no MP's to Ottawa.
Less than half a million East Coaster voted Liberal and sent a gaggle of Librano MP's to Ottawa.
No party received more than 24 percent of the eligible vote last election. I think that President Dubya, whose party had to resort to stealing an election in 2000, is more legit than our current colonial administrator in Ottawa.
Yes, I'll stand by all that. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Americans vote so as not to elect a right-wing whacko government.
Canadians vote "strategically" so as not elect the lunatic right-wing fringe.
We slipped in voter turnout in the 1990's, ranking somewhere down around Fiji and Benin in a comparison of turnouts in 160 some odd countries. The Yanks were even worse off, and who could blame them?.
European and Scandinavian countries tend to have higher turnouts because social democracy is on the line - they have something to protect from their own right-wing parties, de-fanged and somewhat neutered by proportional democracy.
Canadian voters are jaded against voting since the FTA-NAFTA flip-flops and sellouts by our two old line parties in the 80s-90's. And the Liberals non-election promise to thieve over $50 billion in UI-EI-O funds didn't help matters.
PR would change electoral dynamics in Canada considerably. Our two old line parties are afraid of advanced democracy. The two old line parties in the U.S. appreciate their permanent plutocracy enough not to consider advanced democracy.
Fri, 2007-01-26 09:58
#10
Or maybe if we had PR we would just be ruled by perpetual Liberal-Conservative coalition governments. In every Canadian election in history the Liberals and Conservatives combined have had well over 50% of the vote!
Fri, 2007-01-26 11:41
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Or maybe if we had PR we would just be ruled by perpetual Liberal-Conservative coalition governments. In every Canadian election in history the Liberals and Conservatives combined have had well over 50% of the vote![/b]
Well then our two old line parties should have nothing to fear of advanced democracy then. They should be enthusiastic about legitimizing their rightfull stranglehold on power through proportional democracy. With PR, the NDP would have sent 54 MP's to Ottawa, in their faces and talking to reporters. The two old line parties shouldn't have any worries at all about the changing electoral dynamics that would result with advanced democracy in Canada. They should embrace such a one-off maneuver like so many sponsorship contracts as a national diversion from what their other hands are doing behind the scenes. And the Liberal Party could finally make good on Jean Chretien's promise to Manitoban's for electoral reform. Everybody wins with the appearance of advanced democracy in Canada, and their stranglehold on power isn't affected one bit.
Mon, 2007-01-29 15:15
#12
Fidel, if you're gonna start throwing out numbers, could you please start posting sources? I ask nicely and I'm not dismissing the numbers.
Why is "strategic voting" bad? Why is turnout neccessarily "good"?
quote:
Fidel: they have something to protect from their own right-wing parties, de-fanged and somewhat neutered by proportional democracy.
Presenting pro-PR arguments in terms of trying to handicap other political constituents isn't.... politically astute, I'll say.
And I have one more question I want to ask that I've always been kind of foggy on: How does a party pick who gets a seat in PR?
Mon, 2007-01-29 17:08
#13
My twelve year old nephew understands ratio and proportions.
And what numbers are you referring to?. I nailed up the site for [url=http://fairvotecanada.org]http://fairvotecanada.org[/url] in a previous post. HOW would it be handicapping any party when the number of MP's they send to Ottawa and the number of votes they receive would be proportional?. Decades of Gerrymandering ridings by Canada's two old line parties could be undone with List PR. We've had a string of phoney majorities in Ottawa, and voters get tired of that. Many of them don't even realize how Gerrymandered the system is, and so they, too, join the ranks of disinterested non-voters believing their vote won't matter anyway. That's not democracy when we have 60 percent of the electorate showing up to vote, and then 36 percent of that sum total ends up choosing who cheats and robs us for the next four to five years.
[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Mon, 2007-01-29 18:51
#14
If people don't vote, it just means that they aren't interested and politics and/or they are content with the status quo and feel that the stakes are too low for them to be bothered to vote.
Mon, 2007-01-29 19:54
#15
I can agree with that, Stockholmer. But it doesn't have to be that way. If we had PR, we could say to people at their doors that their vote counts only if they vote on that one day every four years, and it would mean something. They get one day of protest, and if they snooze they lose. I think it might take one or two elections before people realized they didn't have to vote strategically, or that voting strategically is actually enhanced by List PR without having to sacrifice their first choice in order to do it. It's all about choices we could say to them, and they'd like that.
Tue, 2007-01-30 00:34
#16
quote:
Fidel: My twelve year old nephew understands ratio and proportions.
Good for him. I assume his teachers taught him well. I still think you're argument is hackneyed and without nuance, but I usually don't automatically state it outright in an post. I usually let the opponent show it after an exchange of posts. But, kudos, the ad hominem attack exposes that feint.
quote:
Fidel: And what numbers are you referring to?
I stated I asked nicely, geez. I only asked because I do a hell of a lot of searching myself in my posts and if you really want a debate, your figures which I do not doubt would be so much more handy if I didn't have to search for them [i]on my own[/i] (I provide my proof, you provide your proof.... or is sourcing an alien concept to you?)
Figures I want sourced:
quote:
Fidel: Half a million Albertans voted for somone other than the reformaTories but elected no one.
quote:
Fidel: More than half a million voted for the Green Party but sent no MP's to Ottawa.
quote:
Fidel: Less than half a million East Coaster voted Liberal and sent a gaggle of Librano MP's to Ottawa
.
quote:
Fidel:We slipped in voter turnout in the 1990's, ranking somewhere down around Fiji and Benin in a comparison of turnouts in 160 some odd countries.
quote:
Fidel: No party received more than 24 percent of the eligible vote last election.
Fairvote.ca is an advocacy site that tells me nothing on it's first page. You're the advocate. You're the one arguing with me, you're the one that needs to reference your stats. I don't want to read fairvote.ca because you're supposed to be it's proxy. Or, in any argument about PR, do you just suddenly scream, fairvote.ca! QED! I give up!
Are pretty internet sites and platitudes supposed to mullify me? Sometimes, but not right now.
quote:
fidel:Gerrymandered the system is, and so they, too, join the ranks of disinterested non-voters believing their vote won't matter anyway. That's not democracy when we have 60 percent of the electorate showing up to vote, and then 36 percent of that sum total ends up choosing who cheats and robs us for the next four to five years.
Still, sure, I accept what you're saying but you [i]still[/i] haven't answered my questions:
quote:
clockwork:Why is "strategic voting" bad? Why is turnout neccessarily "good"?
....
How does a party pick who gets a seat in PR?
[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Tue, 2007-01-30 01:36
#17
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]Fairvote.ca is an advocacy site that tells me nothing on it's first page. You're the advocate. You're the one arguing with me, you're the one that needs to reference your stats. I don't want to read fairvote.ca because you're supposed to be it's proxy. Or, in any argument about PR, do you just suddenly scream, fairvote.ca! QED! I give up![/b]
What did last your personal assistant die of?. Maybe you weren't paying them enough, and they got on full-time with a backup exec offering better dental ?. Anyway, I'm sure you know.
And so I insist you take me at my word that I'm reciting facts and numbers from that Canadian-based organization. Either that or you can do some pointing and clicking and reading yourself. I know, it's tedious. So, is there anything in particular that I've quoted loosely from their site that you don't agree with ?. In any event, the onus would now lie with you to prove them wrong not me, as I'm the one quoting them and rather loosely I must admit. So if you have a bone to pick with FairVoteCanada, then it's up to YOU to decide whether YOU disagree with them, but not me or any other person here claiming to be Fidel. Or you can nail up your own source, which may or may not contradict what FVC( and that's short for [url=http://fairvotecanada.org]http://fairvotecanada.org[/url] ) is claiming. Perhaps someone has paid you or someone who looks like you to do research into this specific subject material, in which case you can quote yourself. It's up to you, because it's all about YOU and YOUR choices. I'm only reciting what the organization is saying. And here it is again, mister short-term memory: [url=http://fairvotecanada.org]http://fairvotecanada.org[/url] Maybe you could try bookmarking it this time
[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-01-30 09:06
#18
Fidel there's no need to get all chippy and sarcastic in discussing this. Dial it back a bit and let's keep things civil, ok?
Tue, 2007-01-30 10:47
#19
You're absolutely right. That post was not meant to further an understanding of the thread topic.
[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2007-01-31 00:01
#20
The votes didnt count. In a safe tory seat in alberta, a vote for the NDP is a wasted vote.
If you are a ndp voter in that safe seat area, you ask the question. Why bother? Because cause and effect runs peoples lives. You pay 5 bux and you get your beer. In alberta you vote ndp and you get no representation. Thats why your vote doesnt count. And thats why Canada desperately needs PR.
And I dont think the questions you directed at me even deserve an answer.
I dont like people to play dumb in debate. It is infantile.
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690
quote:Fidel: Six million wasted votes last election.
Were those six million votes.... not counted? Thrown out? Spoiled? (I assume you're talking about the US of A)
quote:Fidel: And 35 percent of the electorate were too pissed off
Are you really sure you want to stand by this statement? I just want to clarify before hand.
Fri, 2007-02-02 00:20
#21
quote:
In alberta you vote ndp and you get no representation. Thats why your vote doesnt count. And thats why Canada desperately needs PR.
Sorry, Brian White, I just want to get something straight.
In BC, the recent vote was on switching to a single transferable vote, meaning you give preferance A, preferance B, etc, and the actual candidate that wins has either a pluralitty (is that a word?) of either first chioce votes or a majority of second chioce votes.. I'm curious myself about this, but I suspect the NDP wouldn't show up as even the third chioce in a STV system in Alberta. So if a vote wasted under a FPTP system is evil, is a vote wasted under PR (the single transferable vote) that doesn't elect your own NDP horse less of an insult or more of one? (as I understand it, Liberals capture in excess of 40% of the vote in Alberta... yet Alberta is always blue).
The six million votes wasted is... somethng I need context on at this particular moment. More context is always good.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Fri, 2007-02-02 08:37
#22
scott
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]I suspect the NDP wouldn't show up as even the third chioce in a STV system in Alberta.[/b]
Why do you say that? The NDP won 4 ridings in the 2004 provincial election, and come second in more. The Greens placed second in one provincial riding in 2004 and second Federally in one Alberta riding in 2006.
I expect that under PR more people would vote for minor parties because a vote for a minor party would count.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: scott ]
Fri, 2007-02-02 13:40
#23
Careful, i think it's a weak position he's taking on purpose in order to make us believe he doesn't know what in hell he's talking about when he really does.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2007-02-03 01:31
#24
quote:
Scott:I expect that under PR more people would vote for minor parties because a vote for a minor party would count
Debatable.. in that this is supposed to be a step forward. This is a point that relates to transferable votes, strategic voting, etc, and whether PR really is a step forward. If consensus is the golden calf of politics, letting people vote without consequence for their own single issue party that brokers no deal with anything less than their own narrow interest policy falls well short of the ideals of the golden calf. So, sure, the minor party picks up more votes. But if that narrow interest party becomes key to a governing coalition, you're seceding power to a bunch of ideological nobodies. Governing is more than interest. Governing is having an anti-Kyoto PM attacking the Liberals on their own Kyoto implementation and having a straight face. Governing is holding a free vote on same sex marriages knowing full well it's gonna fail and not in some future date when it might pass.
Power corrupts. But hey, even under a FPTP system power corrupts their governing philosophy (ask Bob Rae as well as Harper).
quote:
Fidel: Careful, i think it's a weak position he's taking on purpose in order to make us believe he doesn't know what in hell he's talking about when he really does.
I'm not sure how to comment on this. Long time babblers may know the handle's of John I Flemming and A2000. I certainly ain't one of them. But I reserve the right to comment on any topic how I see fit. And if anyone withholds comment thinking that I'm just a troll... well, there are two people that lose out. The commentator that doesn't participate in the basic system that transfers political ideas becomes a useless, insulated ideologue while posts like the one above makes me even more suspicious of the philosophy espoused on this board and places like it.
Sure, scott, don't participate in this discusion because someone told you my posts may not accurately reflect what I actually think. But if you withhold you're participation on those grounds are you really here to learn more about your own philosophy? Or are you looking for [i]confirmation[/i] of your own philosophy?
As trolls go, I'm probablly the most benign.
Sat, 2007-02-03 06:39
#25
I'm for PR, because I think it does go a ways to clean up our gerrymandered system. While I agree that Clockwork's scenario of small special interests getting more power than thier numbers indicate they should have is a possibility, I think that possibility is eclipsed by the benifits we hope to gain.
As the crisis with the environment indicates, we need a political system that is able to keep up to not only this change, but others we are facing and will face in the future. We need a government that is more responsive. The 19th century model isn't working. And in response to Clockwork's scenario, I will say that if we wait and debate untill we all come up with a perfect idea that accounts for every concievable outcome, well....
Not every idea is perfect, one has to wiegh the pros and cons, and I think the pros outwiegh the possible cons on this subject.
One idea in support of PR I didn't see in this thread, (sorry if it is in the other) is that it would end the regionalism that has plagued our politics for the last couple of decades.
With PR, every party would have representation from every province or region. I think that's an important.
Sat, 2007-02-03 11:51
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b] While I agree that Clockwork's scenario of small special interests getting more power than thier numbers indicate they should have is a possibility, I think that possibility is eclipsed by the benifits we hope to gain.[/b]
With PR, I believe candidates would have to win a certain pre-determined threshold percentage of the vote. I think that purely proportional voting restricts voters to party choice rather than indidual choice in a similar way that FPTP does. And there would be people who tend to vote for the individual and not the party.
quote:
[b]With PR, every party would have representation from every province or region. I think that's an important.[/b]
I agree. More often than not we end up being ruled by governments with phoney majorities in Ottawa. And that's when they take voters and election promises for granted. I think PR would tend to create a sense of obligation to voters among the two old line parties. Most developed nations switched to proportional democracy decades ago, and I think the last three most politically conservative nations in the world need to let go of the past.
Sun, 2007-02-04 07:38
#27
I'm not convinced that having PR necessarily drives up support for smaller parties since people presumably no longer fear that their vote will be wasted.
We have a perfect example in New Zealand where they have MMP. here is what happened in the last New Zealand election:
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENCY VOTES
============================================
Party Votes %
--------------------------------------------
ACT New Zealand 45,071 02.0
Green Party 92,164 04.1
Jim Anderton's Progressive 36,638 01.6
Labour Party 902,072 40.3
Mвori Party 75,076 03.4
National Party 903,367 40.4
New Zealand First 78,117 03.5
United Future New Zealand 62,691 02.8
Others 43,138 01.9
----------------------------------------------
Total 2,238,334 69
-------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF LIST VOTES
===============================================
Party Votes %
-----------------------------------------------
ACT New Zealand 34,469 01.5
Green Party 120,521 05.3
Jim Anderton's Progressive 26,441 01.2
Labour Party 935,319 41.1
Mвori Party 48,263 02.1
National Party 889,813 39.1
New Zealand First 130,115 05.7
United Future New Zealand 60,860 02.7
Others 40,389 01.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total 2,286,190 52
----------------------------------------------
You will note that both in the popular vote for riding MPs and in the national list vote, the two big parties the National Party and the Labour Party between them won over 80% of the vote.
You will also vote that there was very little difference in support for the smaller parties when they ran in ridings (where none of them have any chance of winning) or when they run as a national list party (where every vote counts). For example the Green Party got 4.3% of the vote in the ridings, where a Green vote is a totally wasted vote. The only got 5.1% of the vote at the national elevel where every vote "counts" - not very impressive.
I still support PR, but I think that examples like this show that voting behaviour might not be all that different if we had PR than it is now. If you live in New Zealand, you have nothing to lose by voting for an ideological bookend party like the Green Party or Jim Anderton's Progressives on the left or for the far right ACT New Zealand etc... and yet the vast vast majority of New Zealanders vote for the two big parties - the National Party which is much like the CPC in Canada and the Labour Party which is a very slightly left of centre "THird Way" type party that would be like some sort of LIberal/NDP hybrid in Canada.
[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
Sun, 2007-02-04 08:31
#28
Stockholm. 5.1% is actually a lot bigger than 4.3%
(It is just over 18% bigger)
In lots of MMP systems, 5% is often the threshold.
That makes it giant.
Perhaps in new zealand, the non green partys are currently very non green and this might be a reason for greens to pointlessly vote green in the ridings. If I were green in NZ, I would definitley vote for a greener gray in the ridings part.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]I'm not convinced that having PR necessarily drives up support for smaller parties since people presumably no longer fear that their vote will be wasted.
We have a perfect example in New Zealand where they have MMP. here is what happened in the last New Zealand election:
You will also vote that there was very little difference in support for the smaller parties when they ran in ridings (where none of them have any chance of winning) or when they run as a national list party (where every vote counts). For example the Green Party got 4.3% of the vote in the ridings, where a Green vote is a totally wasted vote. The only got 5.1% of the vote at the national elevel where every vote "counts" - not very impressive.
Sun, 2007-02-04 08:59
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]voting behaviour might not be all that different if we had PR than it is now. If you live in New Zealand, you have nothing to lose by voting for an ideological bookend party like the Green Party or Jim Anderton's Progressives on the left or for the far right ACT New Zealand etc... [/b]
One quirk in New Zealand's model, a quirk I would not copy, is starting to show up in these numbers. They have a 5% threshold, waived if the party wins one local seat.
United Future New Zealand got only 2.67% this time. But their leader won his local seat, so they got three seats, including two list MPs.
ACT New Zealand were in even worse shape. Their vote dropped to 1.51%. Yet their leader still won his local seat, so they earned two MPs including one list MP.
And Jim Anderton's Progressive Party got only 1.16%. Still he won his local seat, but his coattails were too short to bring anyone with him.
How could this happen?
Jim Anderton, Labour's coalition partner, is clearly an independent Labour Party member in all but name. In his Wigram riding his party got only 2,191 votes, but he picked up another 13,770 votes: mostly 9,863 from Labour voters who wanted to ensure votes for his party were not wasted.
In Epsom, ACT leader Rodney Hide has become a brutally obvious captive of the National Party: ACT got only 1,237 party votes, yet picked up another 14,014 votes for local MP, mostly from National Party supporters. The tactics were apparent: 3,777 Labour Party supporters deserted their third-place local candidate in order to give tactical votes to the local National Party man, hoping he would defeat Rodney Hide and deprive National's potential coalition partner of any seats in the House.
When you see such tactical voting, you know you're looking at a PR model which is not quite working as intended.
In Ohariu-Belmont, everyone loves United Future leader Peter Dunne. His party got only 2,063 votes, but he picked up 14,781 more for local MP: 5,578 from Labour voters (he had helped keep Labour in power) and 8,713 from National voters (Either they hoped he would come over to them, or they just like him.)
Sun, 2007-02-04 11:11
#30
More akin to diliberate time wasting in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Careful, i think it's a weak position he's taking on purpose in order to make us believe he doesn't know what in hell he's talking about when he really does.[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ][/b]
Thu, 2007-02-08 17:39
#31
That's precious. Do you not qualify your own post as, maybe, deliberate?
quote:
Tommy_Paine: One idea in support of PR I didn't see in this thread, (sorry if it is in the other) is that it would end the regionalism that has plagued our politics for the last couple of decades.
This is actually a curious question. I wonder what the support for PR is in Quebec given that it was barely a decade ago that our FPTP system gave a soveriegnist party Official Opposition status. And if regionalism is code for getting rid of the Bloc, that strikes me as a double edged sword.
quote:
Fidel: With PR, I believe candidates would have to win a certain pre-determined threshold percentage of the vote. I think that purely proportional voting restricts voters to party choice rather than indidual choice in a similar way that FPTP does. And there would be people who tend to vote for the individual and not the party.
I'm a stategic voter. I vote Liberal because (especially a couple elections ago when Clement ran here) the Conservative (ie: the white ethnic vote) always makes a strong showing. With the single transferable vote system, I pick NDP but put Liberal second.... and I'll wager the Liberal candidate would still win. Why is the second (hypothetical case) morally superior to the first when the outcome is the same?
quote:
Fidel: I agree. More often than not we end up being ruled by governments with phoney majorities in Ottawa. And that's when they take voters and election promises for granted
I'm always suspicious of such statements. To me, it's code for ideological infexibility. Pre-income trust Harper would probably be your kind of politician since he pretty much stuck to his promises. Post-income trust Harper is just another slippery politician that you can lump into your statement but pretty much no one thought income trust status could be left alone. Quibble over exection, sure. But he had to do it. I also note the oil sector is going after post-income trust Harper. People call this type of thing flip-flopping but I don't see why this is evil.
As for the New Zealand example, I think one of the points about PR systems is that it will help drive up the turnout. According to the Agenda show I watched (a TVO program for those outside of Ontario), some guy made the point that the turnout did go up but came right back down to pre-PR system levels. And returning to turnout levels in Europe and PR, I question a direct causation. It was said above that PR cripples conservatives and pretects the welfare state. Maybe. Or maybe the Christian Democrat parties of Europe are strong. Maybe the centre of the spectrum is to the left of the North American spectrum. Maybe the preferance for the welfare state predates PR in any given country (I might actually look into this).
Thu, 2007-02-08 19:52
#32
Hi, Clockwork,
My diliberate timewaste posts go in babble banter.
I have figures for recent irish general election turnout compared to BC turnout on [url=http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/voting.htm]http://nxtwave.tripod.com/...
The republic of ireland has PR, and almost exactly the same population as BC (but on average much younger). As you know (because you are so smart)
young people do not vote as much as older people.
But Ireland has MUCH GREATER turnout in elections than BC has. Perhaps you could tell me the reason?
Someone mentioned that their gut feeling in stv is if you put ndp first and liberal 2nd, the liberal will probably still get elected just like when he votes strategically in first past the post.
You gut feeling is wrong. It is morally better that the politicians know what the voters first choices are. In STV your ndp candidates are likely to win seats in broad proportion to their first preference share nationally. (Definitely NOT the case in first past the post). In stv, you are likely to have 2 ndp candidates to vote for, so 1 ndp 2 liberal only arises if you dont like the 2nd ndp candidate.
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]That's precious. Do you not qualify your own post as, maybe, deliberate?
As for the New Zealand example, I think one of the points about PR systems is that it will help drive up the turnout. According to the Agenda show I watched (a TVO program for those outside of Ontario), some guy made the point that the turnout did go up but came right back down to pre-PR system levels.
[/b]
I'm a stategic voter. I vote Liberal because (especially a couple elections ago when Clement ran here) the Conservative (ie: the white ethnic vote) always makes a strong showing. With the single transferable vote system, I pick NDP but put Liberal second.... and I'll wager the Liberal candidate would still win. Why is the second (hypothetical case) morally superior to the first when the outcome is the same?
quote:Fidel: I agree. More often than not we end up being ruled by governments with phoney majorities in Ottawa. And that's when they take voters and election promises for granted
Fri, 2007-02-09 16:05
#33
My deliberate time wasting makes me more informed about the issue at hand. C'est la vie.
quote:
BW: But Ireland has MUCH GREATER turnout in elections than BC has. Perhaps you could tell me the reason?
Well, obviously I can't tell you the reason. I can theorize though. Maybe Ireland doesn't have a aboriginal population. Maybe Ireland has a low percentage non-English speaking, non-native born citizens in comparison to BC. Maybe Irish voters in the east don't resent Irish voters in the west. Maybe Irish voters aren't exposed to having leaders elected for them that are tough to understand. Maybe the experience the young people have in watching their country transform from an economic backwater to a propserous region gives them a sense of control whereas young people in an already developed region don't get that experience.
[url=http://www.idea.int/index.cfm]Pretty cool link[/url]
[url=http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm]If you can't figure out why I say the link is cool[/url]
Dig a bit and you can throw this in my face.
If anyone cares to know, apparently most PR systems in Europe date back to the start of the century.... er, start of last century, sorry.
And in case anyone doubts me referencing TV as a reliable source:
[img]http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/images/sr/cp1-1.gif[/img]
[url=http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civil-political-rights/voter-turnout...
New Zealand adopted in '96.
![http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/images/sr/cp1-1.gif[/img]](http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/images/sr/cp1-1.gif[/img]){kind=link}
editted: Brian White, I'm not ignoring the morality issue about STV etc, I'm still digesting the response (suppertime!)
[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Fri, 2007-02-09 17:41
#34
Clockwork, I believe some of the reason for lack of interest in New Zealand's elections over the 1990's was similar to here ie. conservative political agendas resulting in increasing inequality and numbers of citizens living in poverty. It's been said that disenfranchised people are the one's least likely to vote in elections. And with skyrocketing university tuition fees in NZ over the 1990's, thousands of New Zealand's youth emigrated to Europe and parts elsewhere looking for affordable post-secondary education while that country experienced high rates of unemployment.
New Zealand and Canada share similar characteristics wrt natural wealth. NZ is rated one of the wealthiest countries in the world wrt per capita land, pastures, protected parks and sub-surface wealth. Canada, a "G8" economy, ranks close behind. And yet, neither Canada or NZ, both relatively conservative wrt politics, have ever broken into the top ten country list for Economic Competitive Growth Index.
It's my belief and others that voter turnouts are greater in countries where social democracy exists for voters to protect from political conservatism. Our two old line parties destroyed a great deal of social justice in Canada from the late 1980's through the 90's, and our voter turnouts are below what they are in New Zealand. In a comparison of voter turnouts among 163 nations during the 1990's, Canada ranked down near Fiji and Benin. U.S. rates were even worse.
[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2007-02-10 09:30
#35
In every election there have been leftwing parties offering alternatives to the policies of the major parties in both Canada and New Zealand - if people can't be bothered to go to the polls and vote for them - its their tough luck.
There is one party in New Zealand that is to the left of the ever so slightly left of centre New Zealand Labour Party and that is Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. They took 1.5% of the vote, despite having PR.
Sat, 2007-02-10 14:59
#36
So do they have an actual Liberal Party funded by banks and corporations and claiming to want to maintain health care, education, and wanting to reduce poverty like here ?.
Sat, 2007-02-10 16:25
#37
quote:
So do they have an actual Liberal Party funded by banks and corporations and claiming to want to maintain health care, education, and wanting to reduce poverty like here ?.
They have the National Party that is their most rightywing party, but its worth noting that it was under the Labour Party that New Zealand embarked on a rightwing fiesta of massive spending cuts in 80s.
Sat, 2007-02-10 18:11
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]They have the National Party that is their most rightywing party, but its worth noting that it was under the Labour Party that New Zealand embarked on a rightwing fiesta of massive spending cuts in 80s.[/b]
Of course, just about every English-speaking country embarked on right-wing cost-cutting in the 1980's. And just about every English-speaking countries economies' started going down the toilet after following Milton Friedman's advice. New Zealand's National Party took labour's reforms a step further and made turned NZ into a good country to emmigrate from.
And Canada and NZ are still recovering from the debt holes our two countries were dropped into during the 1980's. Economists know now that its not social programs that cause national debt to go up - it's high unemployment. And where we are now is post-Librano regime Canada. The Liberals shouldered all of the blame on Mulroney's skeletor economic plan for saddling us with humungous national debt as an excuse for slashing and burning and pillaging social democracy across Canada with unnecessary zeal.
Sat, 2007-02-10 18:33
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]They have the National Party that is their most right wing party.[/b]
And they also have a (shrinking) further right[url=http://www.act.org.nz/] party called ACT [/url](originally Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, like Harper's Citizens' Coalition) which subtitles itself The Liberal Party:
quote:
ACT stands for individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility and the protection of the life, liberty and property of each and every citizen.ACT is dedicated to enabling New Zealanders to have more opportunities and choices in their own lives. We promote political and economic freedom, strong families and communities, smaller government, and greater empowerment of individuals.
It would be nice to have such an honest Liberal Party here.
Sat, 2007-02-10 23:08
#40
quote:
Of course, just about every English-speaking country embarked on right-wing cost-cutting in the 1980's. And just about every English-speaking countries economies' started going down the toilet after following Milton Friedman's advice. New Zealand's National Party took labour's reforms a step further and made turned NZ into a good country to emmigrate from.
...and despite all that and despite having PR, only 1% of New Zealanders chose to vote for a party that was to the left of the Labour Party.
Sat, 2007-02-10 23:32
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]only 1% of New Zealanders chose to vote for a party that was to the left of the Labour Party.[/b]
But of course Helen Clark's Labour Party is to the left of Roger Douglas. As for Jim Anderton, who said in 1989 when he quit the Labour Party that the Labour Party had left him, the voters would seem to have concluded that Helen Clark's Labour Party has rejoined him.
Sat, 2007-02-10 23:41
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]...and despite all that and despite having PR, only 1% of New Zealanders chose to vote for a party that was to the left of the Labour Party.[/b]
Still their voter turnouts are better than Canada's ranging from high 70's to low 80's. Democracy in New Zealand rates a "B+" grade.
Voter turnout in Canada was 60 and 64.9 in the last two federal elections, a And turnout for municipal elections are just awful. Democracy in Canada is worth a "C" grade at best.
And U.S. democracy is just awful, a "D" grade.
Sat, 2007-02-10 23:46
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]...that Helen Clark's Labour Party has rejoined him.[/b]
I don't understand, Wilf. Is labour in NZ moving left or right toward Anderton, or are both Anderton and Labour moving away from labour ?.
Sun, 2007-02-11 08:06
#44
But you saw from the graph above that there was ZERO correlation between NZ moving to PR and any increase in voter turnout.
Sun, 2007-02-11 08:30
#45
I don't know that you can extrapolate from New Zealand what would happen in Ontario. Is that approach all that different from using Israel and Italy as the examples of PR?
The NZ voting turnout data does show that NZ has a significantly higher voter turnout than Ontario (and Canada). As well, Ontario has three major parties, not two. Switching to PR will not automatically mean that the NDP will be reduced to a minor party like the Greens or the CPC-ML.
Also, PR doesn't automatically mean that the Libs and Cons will unite to form a government in every case.
Wouldn't the NDP be better off getting their fair share of seats with the potential for further growth as voters would be able to vote their first choice in almost all cases?
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]
Sun, 2007-02-11 09:13
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Is labour in NZ moving left or right toward Anderton.[/b]
Short version:
Anderton left Labour and formed NewLabour which was intended to be faithful to Labour's original position on the left. Then he and others formed Alliance. Then he became deputy PM in the Labour-Alliance coalition government. Then Alliance disintegrated when some of them felt Anderton was compromising too much with Labour. Meanwhile Helen Clark (with nudging from Anderton and others) had moved Labour away from the centrist position, back to a centre-left position.
So the distinction between Anderton and Labour had shrunk to the point that voters were not sure there was much point voting for Anderton. And then there was the fact that, in the second-last election, his Progressive Party had dropped below 5%, making its seats dependant on Anderton winning his own local seat. This in turn left him more dependant on the support of Labour voters in his own riding. Meanwhile across New Zealand other voters were nervous about wasting their votes on a party in decline which, if Anderton failed to be re-elected locally, would win no seats, so that those wasted votes would not help keep National out of office. The small distinctions between Labour and Anderton, growing smaller still as voters saw his dependence on Labour, were no longer worth the risk.
Moral: the one-local-seat exemption leads directly back to strategic voting. If you don't want a 5% threshold, pick a lower number, don't introduce a one-local-seat exemption.
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Sun, 2007-02-11 09:23
#47
I support PR, I just don't believe that it will necessarily lead to a larger voter turn-out.
I support PR because i think it is FAIR. I don't expect it to lead to a higher turn-out and I don't expect it to lead to a leftwing revolution in Canada.
Its just more fair. Period.
Sun, 2007-02-11 10:14
#48
Well, if even 5% of voters who currently don't vote because they feel FPTP is unfair (wasted votes), were to start voting, that would be a good start. Of course a lot of people don't vote because there fed up with how politicians behave after they're elected (not how they're elected although we know there is a direct co-relation).
As for the revolution, of course PR is not the answer. But it will give the left more representation, more voice and hopefully more influence. At that point, perhaps more people will be willing to consider a more radical agenda (or not). That's long term.
Sun, 2007-02-11 12:16
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
Moral: the one-local-seat exemption leads directly back to strategic voting. If you don't want a 5% threshold, pick a lower number, don't introduce a one-local-seat exemption.[/b]
Pick a lower number, exactly. Otherwise what's the point in having a proportional system ?. I like the idea of PR if for only the fact that it would reduce odds for phoney majority governments which tend to take power and voters for granted.
And Wilf, from what I've gathered, doesn't list PR, or is it STV, actually enhance strategic voting with second and third preference on ballots rather than eliminate it ?. I agree with Stockholm that PR wouldn't necessarily produce instant leftist government, because then it's all up to voters to decide. The important thing is, no more phoney majorities. And at the very least, a wider cross section of political voices are at least represented and participating. Fringe party supporters would have a reason to pickup a newspaper and see what their candidate had to say on important issues and how they voted on bill proposals, and which mainstream party they're propping up against the right and vice versa. We don't need big party MP's cat napping in the Commons with newspapers over their heads.
Sun, 2007-02-11 13:17
#50
The Law Union held a forum on Saturday concerning the processes which may or may not lead to a different method of choosing our representatives.
While several members of the Citizens' Commission were excellent, a few thought that they could defend the Liberals' ridiculous requirement that
a new system has to win a 60% majority in order to become policy.
They basically defended this standard with lies: they claimed that because it was a big change, it needed a bigger-than-usual per centage adherence.
A second argument was that if they allowed for a 50% threshold, then this would give Quebeckers an argument for a 50% Referendum majority! So we have to lose our equal voting rights because otherwise Quebec might split away.
The truth is that the first-past-the-post system is a historical anomaly, having been imported from England because England had a two-party system. In such a system, and NO OTHER, first past the post is fair.
In Canada, we've had a third party for 3/4 of a century, and are slowly gaining a fourth, but the phony majority governments imposed upon us by FPTP won't make the necessary reforms to reflect that fact.
It was pretty clear to me that the Liberals are setting up the Citizens' Commission to fail. They say the proposed reform needs 60%, but their favorite system, which falsely magnifies their popularity, isn't on the ballot!
Put the FPTP system on the ballot, and let's see IT get 60%! Otherwise, the whole enterprise is vastly biased towarwd the status quo. And THAT isn't working!
Sun, 2007-02-11 13:54
#51
It's disappointing, Jeff. The bastards apparently didn't need majority support when they shoved NAFTA and GST down our throats.
60 percent is a northern Puerto Rican equivalent to the South of history requiring that blacks only recite the declaration of independence word-for-word before being eligible to vote. "They call it freedom when themselves are free."
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]