"Parties breeding like rabbits"
Average number of parties, 1945-1996
PR: party list Switzerland 5.24 Finland 5.03 Italy 4.91 Netherlands 4.65 Denmark 4.51 Belgium 4.32 Norway 3.35 Sweden 3.33 PR: MMP Germany 2.93 Plurality (first past the post) United State 2.40 Canada 2.37 United Kingdom 2.11Source: Dennis Pilon, The Politics of Voting (2007). Adapted from Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy (1999).
10/08/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
13 Comments
Of course, NZ went from 2 parties to 7 after the switch, 8 if you count Jim Anderton as a party (Progressive, always is in coalition with Labour, he always wins his district seat and his party doesn't draw enough List votes to warrant a second MP).
I'm always moderately surprised to see the NDP supporting moves to PR. The experience here in NZ was that the equivalent umbrella left-wing party, the Alliance, effectively split up into the Progressive, Green, and Maori parties. I'd be a bit surprised if an Ontario MMP system wouldn't result in an NDP split into a CAW/Union party, Greens, and a hard left party, unless the Federal wing were able to stop such a split.
as a citizen of the "United State" [as listed above] I am curious as to the fact that the US is listed as having 2.4 parties over the period in question. In contrast to Canada-2.37 (where a third party has been active and represented in Parliament since the 50's and has been the governing party in several provinces) and the UK- 2.11 (where a third party has waned and waxed since the 1920's and several nationalist parties have been strong for over thirty years)
Mr. Coyne,
Your stats here seem skewed or cherry-picked to support your argument. Only one MMP government listed? Only 1945-1996? No mention of when/if any of these governments were FPTP and switched systems? Your own numbers from the "... hordes of extremists..." don't even support your implied argument here - none of those examples had fewer than 6 parties represented. So which is it??
Please reconcile the number of parties in your list with this list of Italian parties.....Sorry Andrew the Italian eloctorate faces a positively rabbit like choice, with every regional seperatist whim atended to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Italy
I think Dennis Pilon was the guy on TVO's The Agenda's program about MMP vs. FPTP. Anyways, there is just no way that this stat can be accurate:
PR: MMP
Germany 2.93
To have a number of 2.93 would mean perhaps a couple of elections where there were only 2 parties represented. Yet Germany have NEVER had less than 4 parties in the Bundestag (counting CDU/CSU as one party).
1949 - 9 parties
1953 - 6 parties
1957 - 4 parties
1961 - 3 parties
1965 - 3 parties
1969 - 3 parties
1972 - 3 parties
1976 - 3 parties
1980 - 3 parties
1983 - 4 parties
1987 - 4 parties
1990 - 5 parties
1994 - 5 parties
1998 - 5 parties
2002 - 5 parties
2005 - 5 parties
If it's avg number of parties/election, I get 4.375.
Of course that should read "Yet Germany have NEVER had less than 3 parties in the Bundestag ..."
Oops.
I think he must be counting the coalitions versus the number of parties within the coalition.
Actually, since the measure of # of parties has decimal points, I'd imagine it's the "effective parties" measure used by election studies folk.
That's correct. It's a kind of weighted average. Standard methodology in the field.
But look at krb's list: for the last fifty years, the Bundestag has been divided between at most five and as few as three parties. Not the 30 fractious micro-parties various hysterics have warned us about.
5% filter as opposed to 3% filter. In the last German election that level wouldnt have made much difference, when looking at results after the fact.
However the quasi nazi party, the National democratic party got 1.8% of the constuituency vote and 1.6% of the list vote. A little too close to the 3% for my tastes.
You get into intersting speculation when you go through the scenario of a 3% filter as opposed to a 5% filter...would the German NDP vote go up because they might actually get representation, or go down, because people would take their vote more seriously, or wouldnt change.
Would a win, under a lower threshld, by the German NDP give them a new life or be a one time thing if they are shown to be irresponsible (if they went off on some neo nazi rant)
All in all it just shows the importance of an appropriate level of filter on the minimum level required to prevent, what AC refers to as "hysetrical opponents" fear, I point to Italy and their large number of parties.....given the more fractured nature of Canada's politics I think a 5% filter is a definite requirement should we end up in this place.
If Germany is AC electoral heaven then Italy has got to be AC electoral Hell where geographically based malcontents keep whittling away under PR cover. Which one sounds more like Canada?
Stephen, geographically based malcontents get a boost under FPTP. Just take a look at how the Bloc Quebecois is always over-represented in parliament.
http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Federal/39/5/PROVINCE
Barely more than 40% of Quebeckers voted for the BQ, and yet they got nearly 70% of the seats from the province? Under PR systems geographically based malcontents have representation proportional to their support, under FPTP they get an exaggerated bonus.
Plus you are promoting an idea that the only thing keeping Canada from flying apart is FPTP. That's a thought probably born out of FPTP exaggeration of regional differences. We have far more in common than you might think:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264607
In any case this is ONTARIO we're talking about:
http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Ontario/LATEST/0/TOP
Check the Full Results in that page. Where are these parties you're worried about that are even anywhere close to getting 3% of the vote?
Ontario is in no way like Italy and probably far more staid than Germany even.
This isn't just a case of comparing Germany to Italy, it's a matter of taking a look at the 80+ countries that use PR and seeing how things work overall. And overall PR does pretty damn well.
One of the main criticisms of FPTP is that it encourages geographic based issues, it does by definition. Of course that follows the maxim that all politics is local.
Anyway, PR is meant to encourage non geographicall based success, like the FDP and Greens in Germany.
My point regarding Italy was that if you dont set up enough of a filter you will still get geographically based issue parties, like the two or 3 regional seperatist or regional chauvinist parties in Italy.
FPTP does play a role in integrating the many into a "big tent"...I said play a role not systematically define or compel.
The BQ is a unique situation. And quite frankly it has been a representation of Quebecers desires. They would most certainly have existed under PR, and in fact it is easier for them to continue to exist under PR as their numbers dwindle.
In Ontario, whether a party exists now or not isnt the point. You set the bar too low and you will get the parties running, whether one will find something that gains 3% is another story, but it is easier to get 3% than 5%.
Once again I susepct this number is chosen to ensure that the Green party gets representation, engineering a result.
I believe if PR were in place the greens would get more than 5% so I dont think you have to worry.
I do think the German example is a wise one, if we are silly enough to go down the PR road. Anything below 5% is asking for trouble, and it isnt the parties you can see but the parties you cant.
I really do believe if you cant convince at least 5% of the public in general that the political view is, for the moment of that elecion, fringe and therefore undeserving of representation in the legislature, public money or research resources.
FPTP has that filter built in. In PR you need to be careful about setting that bar and you are better to err on the cautious side.
Once again, I believe we dont need MMP or STV or other forms of PR. The case for change just isnt apparent. But if my fellow citiens decide that they wish to change the form by which they all agree to legitimize the exercise of power then I will go along with it. Thats when the mechanics of it all matter and 3% is too low..
I would turn the question around and ask why 3%? The ansewer is likely because it is about encouraging new party formation and more importantly encouraging the success of a particular party.
That is a engineering a result. I have no trouble with the green party, but reward for 3% is too thin. My goal isnt to prevent any particular party but to prevent what I consider fringe parties from getting the legitimacy they desire to become embedded in the political culture and setup the nightmare scenario of them holding the balance.
Once again the voters of Ontario will make their decleration today. Of course if the MMP side loses they wont go away. Kind of like having chronic back pain.