And another thing...
PR wouldn't mean the end of majority governments, but the beginning.
For goodness sake, until comparatively lately Italian legislators voted by secret ballot.
No longer would “splitting” the vote be of such concern: with their second X, if not their first, voters could actually choose the party they prefer. If your party’s local candidate was a dud, you could vote for another, and still support your party.
Even Italy and Israel are not as unstable as supposed. Fun fact: which country has had the most national elections since 1945, Israel, Italy or Canada? Answer: Canada.
...Too many politicians? In fact, Ontario is notably under-represented, compared to every other province. Even with the expansion to 129 MPPs proposed by the Citizens Assembly, Ontario would have have roughly one MPP for every 94,000 citizens (versus 1:113,647 today). Quebec has one for every 60,000, and it has the next fewest.
A lot of people seem to find the notion of electing anyone other than the person who finishes first perplexing. But just because it always has been done that way doesn't mean it always must be done that way. Fundamentally, the choice comes down to this: What is an election for? Is it just to find out who wins? Or is it to find out what people want? If the former, then you will favour first past the post. If the latter, then you will be more open to the idea that everyone deserves to be represented in Parliament, not just the party with the most votes. Especially when the "winner" only gets 30% of the vote!
10/02/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
10 Comments
Andrew, I've yet to see you address the work of Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini, who have the most thorough analysis of the effects of PR, and find that countries running PR-type electoral systems have substantially larger governments than do other countries. They argue that a switch to PR from FPTP correlates with a 5% of GDP increase in the size of government.
I've seen lots of columns where you point out that PR hasn't been the end of the world in other places and that it may be more procedurally fair, but I've never seen you take on the body of economic analysis by Persson and Tabellini that we ought expect a substantial increase in the size of government as consequence of the change. They have a nice survey article of their work in the area in the Journal of Economic Perspectives; a working paper version is also available here.
Is it that you don't believe that literature? If so, point out the holes in their analysis. Or, are the desirable features of MMP so compelling that they outweigh the costs in terms of larger government? Weigh up the costs!
I've seen their study, and without getting into a debate over whether correlation is causation, I'd just say this: naturally I deplore that development, unless that is what the people in those countries wanted. The test of a democratic institution is not whether it produces outcomes I happen to agree with, but whether it accurately reflects the public's preferences. In any case, if PR leads to fat, bloated, big-spending governments, what's our excuse?
There's a great debate on the correlation versus causation issue: Daron Acemoglu in the Journal of Economic Literature argues that they've made a fantastic case for correlation but haven't yet proven causation. Check the Winter 2005 Journal of Economic Literature, or the working paper version available here.
Ontario already has a pretty fat, bloated, big-spending government, which arguably reflects voter preferences. Despite Acemoglu's critique, I'm confident enough in the causal mechanism to be willing to put money on it. LongBets facilitates long term bets. If you're interested, and Ontario votes for MMP, we'll work out a precise statement of the bet and put it up there. $200 per side is the minimum stake, and I'd think a 20 year time horizon on the bet would be about what it would take for us to see the effects.
Take my bet if you think that the outcome of MMP in Ontario won't be larger government.
Of course, you note that it might be that government increases because that's what voters want. But, the precise mechanism by which Persson and Tabellini's results come about has absolutely nothing to do with voter preferences and everything to do with the necessity of forming coalitions post-election. Buying off the smaller parties is what leads to larger government in their model. Larger governments then are an artefact of the social choice mechanism rather than a reflection of underlying voter preferences. Their empirical results are consistent with that the increase in the size of government with PR is caused by an increase in the number of coalition governments.
There is an old saying.. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Back during the Charlottetown Accord debate we were told how significant this was and that how your vote is important etc. But in reality,it needed a majority in all provinces, territories and even within some native groups.It was doomed to fail.
In this referendum the yes side needs 60% and a majority in most ridings across the province. Even if this lofty goal is achieved then it is up to the next parliament to make it law.My understanding is that they don't have to.
I find it funny that in Quebec they could hold a referendum on wether or not to become independant (although that wasn't really in the question). where the threshhold of 50%+1 was enough. However, here with a fairly important but not revolutionary change in the way votes are counted,the bar is set much higher. It is ironic that those supporting MMP site that in FPTP a minority usually rules the rest yet in this motion 40%+1 will defeat it.
I don't know who decided this.But of all things you could call it democratic isn't one of them.
As far as the process went in detemining the alternative I am puzzled. I know that there were public hearings that toured the province,sort of like the Antique Roadshow ,to hear from "the people". But how many of us actually knew they were going on and participated. I'am guessing that they were attended by special interest groups and little old ladies.
While there are merits to MMP all this appears to be an exercise to let the public feel like they are empowered and then the next day they will all go away.
It needs 60% overall, and 50%+ in at least 64 ridings (60% of ridings). It is a binding referendum though, as far as I know.
50%+1 wasn't enough in either Quebec referendum, although of course that's what the seperatists said. 60% is the new standard for such a big change. This was the case with Montenegro choosing to secede from the former Serbia & Montenegro. The EU cited Canada's Supreme Court reference on Quebec secession, and took the 60% figure from that.
I agree that 60% for this proposal to go through is probably not called for, although I would stick with the 50%+ in 50%+ of ridings requirement. There has to be widespread support for this proposal, so as to not run into problems after.
I agree with 60%, too: partly because it's a big, quasi-constitutional change, and partly so as not to give the separatists any ammunition. If it takes 60% just to change the voting system in Ontario, it should surely take no less (and in my books, substantially more) of a super-majority to break up a country.
But of course, I mean a super-majority of all of the voters of Canada, not just of one province.
Crampton,
I've never heard of that study by Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini but I'll have to check it out at some point.
I'd be surprised it it's the "most thorough analysis of the effects of PR", I'd give that title to Arend Lijphart's magnum opus "Patterns of Democracy". Lijphart finds a smaller correlation between government spending and PR. If I remember correctly it was only about 1-2% of GDP.
I have to agree with AC when he says that "the test of a democratic institution is not whether it produces outcomes I happen to agree with, but whether it accurately reflects the public's preferences."
Maybe citizens in PR countries have a preference for more government?
For me, PR clearly makes for a much more efficient political market. Aren't conservatives supposed to love free markets?
AC: "Even Italy and Israel are not as unstable as supposed. Fun fact: which country has had the most national elections since 1945, Israel, Italy or Canada? Answer: Canada."
AC, you know that just shows how many Parliaments there have been in each country, and not how many governments (Ministry's).
Since 1945, Canada has had 13 Ministries. Meanwhile, in that time, Israel has had 31 and Italy has had 59!
Not saying it's a bad thing, but stable government it is not.
An obvious question about MMP: cui bono? AC's thoughtful post about invigorating the political debate notwithstanding, the only small parties in Ontario that stand to benefit in the near-term are left wing parties -- the NDP and the Greens (I'm sorry but I don't accept the revisionist thinking on the Greens as a centre party -- just look at who supports them!). However ignorant some people are about MMP, the ones that know enough to cast a vote either way on it know that the MMP system translates to a bolstering of the left in Ontario. If you're currently residing on the right or centre, you're not going to be favourably disposed towards it for that reason.
I think MMP might have a better chance in jurisdictions where both the left and the right have smaller parties that regularly get squeezed by FPTP. Since this isn't the case in Ontario, it will be doomed to fail on Oct 10th.
While canvassing for the new voting system I found that many people like the idea of proportional representation, but object to some detail in the plan: "It adds too many seats", "I don't like the list members", "I think the 3% threshold is too low". When I suggested that since future governments could tinker with these details, it was futile to decide that way, many people looked a bit shocked and then changed their minds. The anti MMP forces are exploiting these variables by creating the impression that if voters say yes, these details will be written in stone, when in fact we are just talking about amending the Elections Act. What voters are really being asked to do is to state their preference between the current FPTP system or a PR system that more closely mirrors the proportion of the vote each party gets. A clear yes will not be easily ignored by future governments.