Principles electoral reformers can agree on Part 2

12 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-11-17 20:29

remind

continued from here

with this post by bagkitty brought over

bagkitty wrote:
....have been following this thread for quite a while, and while it is really long on practical models, it is really short on what I would consider principles.

Almost everyone seems to be taking it as a given that representation should be based (even proportionately) along status quo lines, haven't seen much being said about the principle of representation by population. You know, the value of one vote should be roughly equivalent to the value of a vote in another region. Yes, it is opening another can or worms, but the distortions under the present system are not all resolved by distributing the goodies amongst the parties differently. I would love to see a principled debate based on the premise of all votes being equal, coast to coast to coast. How about we express a little concern for fairness in more than the final seat count.

Wed, 2009-11-18 00:39

Brian White

I guess you are talking about such matters as rural voters requiring fewer votes to elect an MP, and stuff like that?

The partys have used that for years to play games.

In Ireland, it got put to a referendum and of course urban voters voted to be equal and won out because there is more of them and their votes were not electing the right amount of people. It still happens in England too.

So, I think the only way to fix it is to put it to referendum. The partys will always use it to get seats where they do not diserve them.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/fc/GE-2009-05-12_Party... shows that there are a couple of ridings in bc where over 29,000 people voted and 5 ridings where less than 10,000 people voted. So over 58 thousand people have 2 mla's while 43 thousand have 5 mla,s

That absolutely stinks.

Brian

Wed, 2009-11-18 01:50

ReeferMadness

Brian, I don't think it's that simple. According to Elections BC

Quote:
In 1991, the Supreme Court stated conclusively that in order for effective representation to exist, factors like "geography, community history, community interests and minority representation," as well as "relative parity of voting power," must be considered.

Link

So, they can't just level the field so everyone's vote is the same.

More to the point, though, I just don't think it's worth expending the political capital to try to do it. Sure, northern BC is overrepresented relative to population but they still get swamped when you add up the numbers. And if we had a decent PR system, that would limit the ability of parties to get extra seats by controlling those areas where you need fewer votes.

Getting back to principles, to me the overriding objective of a good electoral system should be to translate voter intentions into representation. I think that can be done effectively simply by changing the system. Reducing the influence of regions that are already being affected by relatively declining populations would be just stirring up a hornet's nest unnecessarily.

Wed, 2009-11-18 03:58

Brian White

Well, I am just saying that it is crap. Thats all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs

Very few hornets in canada. In 1991, I have no doubt that the supreme court made a shitty decision. This type of stupid shit is rife in Canada and holds the country back. It is absolute bullshit that there are over 29 thousand active voters in some ridings and under 9 thousand in others. So in the next few years, a bunch of pine forest dies, people leave, and you get a politician for a thousand people? BONKERS If there are no people in a region, why should it have any influence?

Crap, crap and crap. Lots of ways to make life better for rural people. Just give them a few extra teachers and can the extra politicians and straight away they are much better off. In Norway, the community near a dam gets a large share of hydro electricity money because it is their landscape and fisheries that gets damaged by the hydropower. Here, even though they have massive political weight in the boonies, nobody has even heard of such an idea.

ReeferMadness wrote:

Brian, I don't think it's that simple. According to Elections BC

Quote:
In 1991, the Supreme Court stated conclusively that in order for effective representation to exist, factors like "geography, community history, community interests and minority representation," as well as "relative parity of voting power," must be considered.

Link

So, they can't just level the field so everyone's vote is the same.

More to the point, though, I just don't think it's worth expending the political capital to try to do it. Sure, northern BC is overrepresented relative to population but they still get swamped when you add up the numbers. And if we had a decent PR system, that would limit the ability of parties to get extra seats by controlling those areas where you need fewer votes.

Getting back to principles, to me the overriding objective of a good electoral system should be to translate voter intentions into representation. I think that can be done effectively simply by changing the system. Reducing the influence of regions that are already being affected by relatively declining populations would be just stirring up a hornet's nest unnecessarily.

Wed, 2009-11-18 07:25

siamdave

Actually, wouldn't PR take care of that problem, or at least a lot of it? At least in terms of party affiliation - now we have serious regional imablances everywhere, 30% of Albertans vote Lib but get 1 MP while 60% vote Con and get 25 or something equally ridiculous, to the same nationally with the BLoc getting 8% of the vote and 40 MPs and the Greens getting 7% of the vote and zero MPs, and etc. But with a decent PR system, nationally if Libs, Cons, NDP and Greens got (say) 40, 30, 20 and 10% of the vote, then that is more or less the percent of seats they would have in the *national" parliament - I don't see what point there would be in crying about minor regional discrepancies here and there, as it is a national parliament, and everyone should be concerned about national issues. For regional issues, you have your provincial parliament, and assuming they also go PR, you are going to be a lot closer to a MP of your own political persuasion, and again the percents will be divided up fairly. I think it would be a mistake to start talking about somehow arranging things to represent rural or urban areas - that is a can of worms that almost has no end (fishing, farming, big city, medium city, poor area, rich area, different cultural backgrounds / languages, do we have special seats for old people or gay people or teenagers or anyone else who can claim to have a hundred thousand people thus deserving a seat? etc etc etdc), and those who do not want PR could use it to stop it from ever being implemented, as divide and conquer is one of the main tools of people opposing progress, and there is endless room for 'dividing' here. (and it's only a stopgap measure anyway - once people start understanding this is *their* government, then parties will be attritioned out of existence as people start electing local Independents, beholden only to their constituents, not some uber-party run by big money somewhere. But that's getting a little too close to the looking glass for now ...

Wed, 2009-11-18 07:33

Wilf Day

If Quebec's electoral reformers pursue Amir Khadir's success last Wednesday, as they most surely will, developments in Quebec between now and next June will be more critical than anything anyone on this board may do or say.

As noted in this thread, the government referred the question of model design to the Chief Elections Officer, who spent a year doing a masterful study tabled in December 2007. But the minority government did nothing; it's priorities were short-term. For the past year, silence on the surface, possibly debate in the Liberal caucus which had wanted PR three years ago and presumably still knows they need it. (The Quebec electoral map gives the PQ a substantial bonus, as everyone in Quebec understands.)

Here's the full report, 260 pages, in French.

Here's the 18-page summary, in English.

Here's the 18-page summary, in French.

Here's the technical appendix, 150 pages, in French.

Wed, 2009-11-18 19:15

ReeferMadness

WHAT???!!! MMP??? That's not MY favourite type of PR. I'm going to hold my breath and yell until I turn blue!! And then I'll fly out to Quebec and join the NO campaign. And if I can't convince people honestly, I'll just MAKE UP stuff!!

Remind you of anyone?

Wilf, I hate to rain on your parade but it seems like they have a lot of details yet to work out. And it's the details that the anti-PR crowd like to pick apart.

I wasn't aware that the PQ gets a boost from FPTP but the BQ certainly does. If Quebec were to adopt PR, it would be interesting to see what excuses the Bloc would use to oppose it nationally.

Wed, 2009-11-18 21:05

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:

If Quebec's electoral reformers pursue Amir Khadir's success last Wednesday, as they most surely will, developments in Quebec between now and next June will be more critical than anything anyone on this board may do or say.

Sacre bleu! We Babblers must not allow Quebec to one-up us.We should develop our own version of MMP as soon as possible. One of us (Wilf Day) should come up with the perfect version of MMP ASAP. We could then have a vote to affirm the best (Wilf's) version of MMP and send it to the National Assembly well before June.

Wilf, what type of MMP system do you think would be best for Quebec? I'll vote for it now.

If Quebec gets MMP first, I'm moving to Montreal. MMP and Schwartz's famous smoked meat! I would die a happy man.

PS: I'm not being sarcastic. If Wilf could design Canada's electoral systems, within a decade or so afterward he'd be awarded the Order Of Canada.

Thu, 2009-11-19 13:40

RANGER

I hope they look at a moderate approach in Quebec, easing into PR would be the best way to go IMO, unfortunately we try to hit home runs in our minds with these things to just end up striking out, we had some good ideas for moderate mixed systems submitted to the BC CA they may be worth a look.

Fri, 2009-11-20 15:06

#10

New West

Wilf Day wrote:

What you suggest is actually somewhat similar to the "near-winner" no-list MMP model used in the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg. In each of four regions in that province, the local MLAs are elected as we do today, then the usual proportional calculation is done to add MLAs for the unrepresented or under-represented voters, but then, the added MLAs are -- just as you suggest -- the candidates of that party in the region who got the most votes. The best "near-winners." No lists. Only candidates who actually ran in a local riding and got a substantial number of votes will ever get a seat.

New West wrote:

In Regional MMP there are serious concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of the representatives in the multi-member regional districts.

Wilf Day wrote:

If you have closed lists, yes. Suppose a regional open list MMP system, with at least one-third regional MPs, the rest local MPs, and you have two votes: one for your local MP, one for the regional candidate you like best. Do you have concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of the regional MPs? If so, what?

__________________________________________________

I would question the legitimacy of a regional "near-winner" where only a fraction of the voters in the region had an opportunity to vote for that person. (Baden-Wurttemberg)

I would question the accountability of a "swarm of regional winners" (but not the legitimacy of open-list winners) in a large regional district - whether MMP or STV. Certainly, a regional model for selecting additional members provides more accountability than a province-wide model, but voters will do a better of job of holding representatives to account if there are fewer of them to watch. In that sense, FPTP provides more accountability.

But FPTP provides so little choice that many voters just vote their favoured party label without regard to the candidate. So a representative in a safe district will often represent less than 50% of the constituents with respect to broad political (party) outlook, less than 50% of constituents with respect to particular local issues, and, to top it off, will often do a poor job of providing needed, non-political help/representation to individual constituents.

We know that in a single-member district, a representatives should listen to and be prepared to provide reasonable aid to a constituent residing within the boundaries of the district. In that sense he or she represents all the people in the district even if his or her political outlook does not coincide with the outlook of many constituents.

In a 5 or 6-seat STV district, a representative should be willing to listen to (and hopefully address) the concerns of any individual in that district. How effective and accountable can that representative be?

Or take a look at a regional MMP model in BC. Let's suppose that the "North" region is composed of 6 local districts and two regional added members for proportionality. Who do those added members represent? If a constituent within the region has a problem and calls one of them up is the rep obligated to respond or will the constituent just be directed to the local member? How is the added member supposed to effectively serve constituents in that huge region? Is the added member just representing party constituents throughout the region because he or she was elected on a party ballot?

Fri, 2009-11-20 15:34

#11

Brian White

New West, fptp does not have accountability. A not that huge swing against the ndp wiped them out (apart from 2 members) for a full term.

Accountability is not about exterminating a party because a few percent of the people switch sides. Accountability is about having someone that depends on your vote to get elected. In fptp 40 to 60% of votes elect people. These voters are the people who count for the politicians.

It is a 2 way street. it is a transaction.

You vote for me, I work for you.

In mmp and stv the percentage of voters who's vote elects people is higher. (Irish stv has about 79% of votes electing people) so once again, the"you vote for me, I work for you" thing comes into play. Only it is much stronger this time. In stv someone needs my vote to get elected, races for seats are usually very tight. But here in fptp, my vote is meaningless. I vote for Denice Savoe and I know she will win. And at mla level, it is a surefire ndp win too. No contest, no point in voting. They do not need my vote so they do not need me. You think fptp is accountable? Try living in a safe riding.

Sat, 2009-11-21 16:11

#12

New West

Brian -

First off, there was a very big swing against the NDP from 1996 to 2001. They dropped from 39% to 22%. Whether justified or not, voters in the single-member ridings were holding the governing NDP to account in each riding. The problem was that under FPTP voter dissatisfaction translated into just two seats for the NDP and no seats for the other opposition parties. In 2005 our Liberal MLA got the boot in large part because she was weak and ineffective in preventing the closure of a valued local hospital - part of numerous cutbacks that the Liberal government had steamrolled through the leg.

So the unintended effect of individual voter decisions in 2001 was to create a government that had free rein for the next four years. The effects of the wipeout are still being felt - as the Liberals continue to pass legislation that favours their big business cronies at the expense of everyday folks. (HST)

As I implied in my post, FPTP provides no accountability in safe ridings. The Fraser Valley will always be a safe haven for Liberals adept at sacrificing local interests for party/government interests.

More to the point, when you call up a local rep to express a view or ask for some help, staff doesn't ask who you voted for in the last election. Staff does want to know whether you reside in the district. I want to better understand what effective local representation means on the ground and how representatives do an effective job under STV and MMP. Right now I'm looking at an MMP-STV hybrid and I want to sort out the strengths and weaknesses.