On the non-fecundity of rabbits
Some other data, by the way, on the non-proliferation of small parties (they "breed like rabbits," according to the Post) under proportional representation...:
- I mentioned Germany: for most of its post-war history, the Bundestag has been divided between just three or four parties. There are now five (counting the CDU and CSU as one).
- In New Zealand, which like Germany uses the mixed-member proportional model (the one proposed for Ontario). the number of parties winning seats expanded to six after it converted to PR, from four before. There are now eight, but that number is expected to fall.
- In Ireland, which has used PR (the single transferable vote) since 1919, there have typically been five to seven parties represented in the Dáil. (The Irish have had the chance to switch to first-past-the-post on two occasions, and rejected it both times.)
-In the Australian Senate, which is elected by STV, there are currently seven parties. Three of these, however, campaign and vote as a block, and effectively count as one.
- In Sweden, there are seven parties currently represented in the Riksdag. The same number are represented in Denmark's Folketing, and in Norway's Storting.
- In the Netherlands, which uses a pure party-list system (a la Israel), there have generally been 8 to 10 parties represented in the Tweede Kamer.
Are you sensing a trend emerging? The general pattern of PR is to produce two or three dominant parties, with three or four smaller parties orbiting around them. I can see no examples in any of the countries cited of extremist parties grabbing even a footing, let alone the kind of stranglehold that anti-PR hysterics foretell.
4/18/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
25 Comments
What are the tax rates in the countries you mention?
With the exception of Ireland who has turned themselves around from pathetic backwater status and New Zealand who effectively when bankrupt from overspending, all of the countries mentioned are socialistic versions of western kleptocracies where the money ends up in the hands of deadbeat voters instead of swiss bank accounts like Africa.
7 parties!!! Oh my godness, that is like Rabbits in the legislature.
Think about our 4.
Now compare the number of parties that RUN and are on the ballot to how many run in this country.
I think that is where you will find your rabbits.
As I said in my comment on your column, what's the problem this is supposed to solve
legitimacy? participation? policy outcomes? accountability? All of the above?
And then the next question, is PR the best or only way to solve this problem.
Anti PR Hysterics, Whats next...PR Deniers....:->
While the Post got a hyper over PR leading to Hitler I thnk the main criticism of PR is that without proper minimum levels of votes, like 10% then it leads to radical parties. Must set a reasonably high threshold as a filter, which stars to compromise the purity of PR.
Once again power is decided at the margins till a working majority is reached. This gives power to small parties that enable the majority. They will extract a price....this happens in minority parliaments in FPTP so if you dont like this result then the question is which system produces fewer of those situations. Think Jack Layton writing Paul Martins budget. Surprisingly it is the small party that usually has the upper hand in those negotiations.
What is the problem we are trying to resolve with PR?
I wonder how the PR boosters would like the presence of the Christian Heritage party (or some such social right wing entity) led by Stockwell Day or whomever? What if the Bloc Christ were to hold the balance of power and demand new referenda on abortion, captial punishment, and such?
Which is not to say that PR shouldn't be done. My point is that the fuzzy warm glow that greenists and others attribute to PR may go away when the reality of the situation confronts them.
For me, big brokerage parties are nice. Forcing Jean-Pierre Blackburn to sit in caucus with Myron Thompson and actually try to get along is good for Canada. Allowing them to splinter into regional micro parties is not good for Canada.
groovy-on-granville
Interesting example, New Zealand. There is a Maori party. Nice ethnic politics. That's good for the country.
What would we have in Canada that might achieve, say, a 3% threshold?
- Bloc Native.
- Bloc Quebecois (already have that one of course!)
- Alberta First. (Or West first if the grumpy BCers get in the game too.)
- The women's party.
Just like the internent. A party just for people like you! No need to actually, you know, hang out and exchange ideas with people who might see things slightly differently. No need to stretch yourself a bit to think what is in the national interest. Nope. Just what's good for me. Boutique parties for everyone!
groovy-on-granville
My biggest issue with PR is not the proliferation of parties, but rather two issues:
1) voters get off the hook too easily by being able to vote for one-issue parties (Abortion party for example)rather than having to consider entire platforms --just look at the number of people who vote Green party and couldn't tell you a thing about them except that they must be environmental. Looking at Europe these single issue parties just seem to form coalitions with other parties, but really only have one axe to grind so they don't play much of a role in the policy development process. They become window-dressing for a coalition that scoop up single issue voters, leaving the real politics to the other parties (and their more nuanced voters)
2) Most importantly, with proportional lists, you can never vote out cronies. Under our current system, every MP has to win in their riding. (Unless you put them in the Senate -but that's another issue) With lists the party can select a bunch of unelectable party operators and make them MP/Ministers. Some might say this is a good thing, because they don't have to worry about a riding, but I think that if you aren't willing to face the voting public, work in the public service. In some countries candidate who lost in their ridings are simply appointed from the proportional lists, so they stick around forever --which breeds a very high level of cynicism about the value of voting.
I haven't looked at the proposal, but I hope we avoid the German system, where you vote for person and then party. At the last election, many of my German friends intentionally voted for a person of one party and another party for the proportional vote, because they WANTED gridlock. They didn't trust the ruling party, nor the opposition.
AC:
You are attempting to assert that there are not a lot of small parties and then you provide numerous examples of countries with numerous parties? Is this a trick?
FPTP forces the voters to think hard and make a choice about what they want by prioritizing all of their wishes. In Canada we generally choose between three options depending upon whether we live in Quebec or not, (NDP, Lib, Con) or (Bloc, Lib, Con). We weigh their whole platforms and make a choice about which party is closest to what we want.
PR allows voters to avoid this choice, and instead pass the responsibility of prioritizing onto the government. Individual voters choose a party that is closer to their exact preference, but in so doing they fail to come to a consensus as a group. Unfortunately, by delaying the hard decisions, a lot less actually gets done in government. And what actually ends up happening can easily diverge from the voters' wishes, because the parties are doing the prioritizing, not the voters.
A couple of things are true. PR systems have a significantl higher number of effective parties. It's just a fact. But, PR systems only lead the extremist parties in countries which already have deep social cleavages. It's not clear to me whether Ontario is deeply cleavaged. And that post editorial was way off base.
I have no problem with some sort of PR input into the electoral system. We can elect 75% of MPs the way we currently do. The remaining 25% would be taken from regionally-balanced lists compiled by each party to offset the low numbers of FPTP MPs elected by the smaller parties.
The example of the Christian Heritage Party doesn't wash. Nobody, not even I suspect Andrew Coyne, is proposing PURE PR. Presumably a threshold would be in place - I think 7.5% would be appropriate, 10% is too high and would defeat the PR purpose, and 5% is too low for comfort - that would prevent the proliferation of radical fringe or ethnic parties. The CHP is not likely to get 7.5% in a general election even under a PR system and if they do, the number of MPs alotted to it would be too small to make much of a difference.
Come on Andrew, I thought you were a strong federalist? PR like they propose in Ontario won't work in Canada; in fact, I'd say it's dangerous.
I think we'd end up having a new party for every province because there's a chance they'd get seats. (We almost did already.) It would divide the country further. As another commenter said, we'd get one issue special interest parties, ethnic parties, but all having the possibility of having seats in the house. The government would end up spending more of its time making deals rather than governing.
Picking MPs from party lists means these people are accountable to who?
Our current system ensures that a governing party is rewarded for promoting they have the national interest first and foremost coupled with broad based policy.
The splintering and special interest should occur within these parties.
It's not clear to me whether Ontario is deeply cleavaged.
Last summer I saw some pretty deep cleavage in Ontario.
Why do Greens keep whining about getting 666,000 votes? In Germany they STILL wouldn't meet the minimum percentage required to get seats.
"What if the Bloc Christ were to hold the balance of power and demand new referenda on abortion, captial punishment, and such?"
What's wrong with that? It's a misuderstanding of the nature of minority government that any one party could ever hold the balance of power. The governing coalition could include any other party with different demands. Or they could agree. Presumably the referendum would fail, and if it didn't, you might not like it much, but it would be the will of the people. Keep in mind that any new law created this way would be subject to the Charter, which wouldn't go away just because we had PR or some variant of it.
To keep you all abreast of the situation, I can assure you that Ontario is deeply cleavaged.
In a country like Canada PR could mean an end to national parties.With only 3 or 4 parties to choose from voters compromise some ideals and a consensus is formed. For eg. 100,000's of voters in both Alberta and Quebec vote for the same party.
In PR this would evaporate. Wouldn't we see Anglos in Que. voting for a party to succeed from Quebec?
Other regions would adopt similar strategies. This would give Ontario even more power than they have now because any coalition gov't would have to include this large group from the giant region.It could further exclude Canadians from rural areas and smaller communities.
It would also create a senate in parliament. It would be almost impossible to get rid of some cronies from the HofC as their parties would continue to support them.
PR is dumb.
1. It addresses a non-problem: we're not putting "party members" in that reflect the percentage of the electorate? So what? I don't vote for a party. I vote for an individual in my riding.
2. Other people vote based on a party leader - but have no idea what the party is for. Why the heck would we want to put party hacks in the legislature just because somebody identifies with the leader?
3. Let's just say - counterfactually, in my view, but what the heck - that most people vote on the basis of party. Does that mean we don't need ridings at all? Then why the hell do we need a riding-by-riding legislature? Why not just elect - for example - a nine-member corporate board, based on party? (This would mean that different wings within an individual party wouldn't have to trade with each other to get policies through, but that would be more "efficient," wouldn't it?)
4. Why do we need PR? Is everybody too stupid to do the electoral calculus in the current system and allocate his or her vote optimally?
OT, but what's everyone's take on the Bert Brown appointment? Took me by surprise, that's for sure. If the Alberta government was up to sponsoring another election, then fine. But to transpose 2004 election results to a 2007 appointment lacks legitimacy in my eyes.
Did Harper state that he would appoint Brown at the first available opportunity?
It could further exclude Canadians from rural areas and smaller communities.
"further exclude." As if rural areas aren't over-represented on a riding by riding basis.
No single candidate, and certainly no single Party represents my personal views.
Yet PR proponents would claim legitimacy for marginal viewpoints based on some marginal fraction of the electorate: if you think we've had tyranny of the minority before, how will consensus be achieved when the core is fractured further still?
PR proponents seem to forget that not everyone is eligible to vote. And that not every eligible voter is equally able to vote. Today's FPTP system acknowledges this, and requires the elected Member to represent EVERYONE in their riding, not just those they choose. PR systems encourage each Member to only represent those who voted for them, and let "some other Member" represent everyone else. After all, why would a Member bring forward the views of other constituents, as is currently done in caucus meetings?
Does the sun still shine in Belgium? Does it still rain in Ireland? Yes, but not because of any choice of electoral system.
The Legislatures need to break down Party discipline and get Members to vote as individual representatives for their own constituencies. Changing the formula for representation is not an answer to any current problems.
The rural ridings are over-represented but I think the two western provinces (BC-AL)under-representation is a bigger problem.
Nonetheless, it is the big cities that generally select the gov't. This minority is a bit different but for most of the Chretien era it was Ontario's cities that gave him the majorities. Provincially the 905 region determines who wins in Ontario.PR would amplify this even more.
I am against PR because it would reduce the number of BQ seat at the house of commons. This is intolerable.
Well then sepratiste you must be dead set against Quebec independence because that would get rid of the bloody lot.
I'll tell you why I don't like PR.
Its bad enough the current MPs are mostly party hacks controlled by a leader.
Imagine what it will be like when the party hacks are appointed based on party hackness and not at least passing through the crucible of a public debate and election where we might get to meet our riding MP at least once.
I am much more in favor of the single transferable vote.
The problem PR hopes to fix is this: in Canada the House of Commons acts essentially as an electoral college for the office of Prime Minister. Most seats = most electoral college votes = power. However FPTP often assigns seats widely disproportionate to the national popular vote; e.g., Chretien won one of his big majorities with just 36% or some such number. Yes, it's the Canadian muddle along way, but surely things can be done better.
Here's my suggestion. The house of Commons continues with FPTP to provide local reps to cut ribbons, look after Auntie's pension or immigration paperwork problems, and perform as sort of local government ombudsmen (ombudspersons?). However the Senate is elected on a simple party list proportional rep system with half the seats up for change every four years. The Senate gets essentially equal or more power than the Commons. The PM is the guy who can command the most total seats in the two houses.
So, the Senate gets reformed by bypassing the ugly numbers problem of NB being guaranteed more seats than AB forever, etc. Local voters had a direct interest in electing a "good constituency worker" MP. PR works effectively in the Senate to allow experienced members to concentrate on National vice local concerns, etc. With only half of the Senate changing at a time there would be a form of continuity and sudden lurches one way or the other would be avoided.
True, this is a bigger change than dull old Canada can probably handle and it would resemble the US system which get the Anti-American zealots out in opposition but surely it would be an all round better system.
paul.obeda: "The Legislatures need to break down Party discipline and get Members to vote as individual representatives for their own constituencies."
EXACTLY!