"... permanent leftward tilt ..."
From the Fraser Institute's 2007 rankings of economic freedom around the world:
3. New Zealand (PR:MMP) 4. Switzerland (PR) 8. Estonia (PR) 9. Ireland (PR:STV) 9. Australia (Preferential/STV) 11. Finland (PR) 11. Luxembourg (PR) 11. Iceland (PR) 11. Chile (PR) 15. Denmark (PR) 15. Netherlands (PR) 18. Germany (PR:MMP) 18. El Salvador (PR) 18. Austria (PR) 22. Cyprus (PR) 22. Hungary (PR) 22. Lithuania (PR) 22. Sweden (PR) 22. Latvia (PR) 22. Norway (PR) 22. Japan (PR)etc etc. Indeed, outside of Canada, the US, and the UK, you have to go all the way down to 38th place on the list -- Jamaica, Botswana -- to find a democracy that doesn't use some form of PR (depending on whether you count Singapore as a democracy. UPDATE: Also Mauritius?) On the other hand, first past the post offers us such paragons of economic liberty as Zambia (67th), Uganda (76th), Ethiopia (101st), Bangladesh (101st), Pakistan (101st), Nigeria (117th), Malawi (122nd) and Zimbabwe (141st and last).
10/10/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
28 Comments
Or you could say that of the top 7, only 2 do use PR ...
Whoo hoo!
Go Mauritius. One day I pray I get to see you in person.
Hong Kong and Singapore are #1 and 2 -- mmm, ignore those, bad example. PR at 3 and 4 -- highlight! Oops, first past the post at 5,6, and 7 - downplay.
QED!
Your data doesn't say what you're claiming it says.
New Zealand was an economic basket case in the early 1980s before harsh free market reforms were introduced under the old FPTP system. The discontent created by the reforms that resulted in that economic freedom led to the introduction of the PR system. The PR system therefore can't take credit for economic freedom.
Japan has had a single governing party for virtually the entire period following WW2. The existence of PR is incidental.
It's also interesting to note that most of the countries in your list are small countries, have relatively ethnically homogeneous populations, or a combination of the two. This might be an indicator of necessary conditions for successful implementation of a PR system.
Canada is far to regional a country for most forms of PR to work.
The Alberta Party and the Quebec Party would decide that the national level of government was not needed.
For Canada to survive as a political entity, it requires big tent parties where the trade-offs and compromises between ideology and geography can be brokered.
Ideology is NOT the only basis for political parties. Regionality, in Canada, has been as powerful an organizing force as ideology.
Andrew spends far to much time in the centre of the universe, and is basically a charter member of the Toronto Party.
Where is the quote in the title from?
AC, the data in your recent posts seems to disprove your points more often than not.
In this particular case, FPTP systems in the developed world (the few that remain) average much higher in the list.
For that matter, the 'freedom' index is fairly clear about not measuring left or right, but degree of libertarianism.
Seems FPTP has high degrees of economic freedom to me. Why would I trade a system that is ranked consistenly at the top for a system that does no better than the current one on this dimension and yet seems to perform significantly less well across its examples.
A compaison of medians would show a signifcant difference between FPTP and PR on this dimension.
I knew it, even with a solid loss it wouldnt end, chronic back pain. Just like the seperatists. A loss is only one step on the road to victory.
Policy, politics, ideology or dogma?
For me, why incur certain costs for uncertain benefits? If we were designing a new system for whatever reason, new country, crisis in legitimacy etc then this would be on the table. Lacking a crisis or failure of the current model, the need for change is not there.
Correlation and causation?
How about 6 of the top 7 were formerly of the British empire, and have a long tradition of liberty and the common law.
Voting systems has nothing to do with it.
Are you done now, Andrew? Will you stop the whinging and complaining, the endless pleading for needless electoral reform? The votes are in, your MMP proposal was defeated in every riding in the province, barring a few left-wing downtown Toronto redoubts.
Please, please find another topic -- don't wander down the cranky old-man pundit route that Micheal Bliss, Allen Fotheringham, Dalton Camp, and David Warren took. You still have a chance to be the next Jeffrey Simpson, but only if you try harder.
Matthew,
Long tradition of liberty and common law and keen on alternating majorities rather than cooking up coalitions. What an odd co-incidence. Any chance that countries that are best able to constrain majorities between elections are most likely to favor electing them?
Another odd co-incidence: The partially multiple member STV proposal in BC was less resistant to majorities than MMP and got over 50%. Gibson is right: "the government's assignment of benchmark 'values' may have biased the dialogue". If you rule out majorities as having any value, don't be surprised when the public assigns little value to your reforms.
I'd bet the 1st province to propose single member STV would get 2/3 support for an instant run-off system that doesn't resist majority mandates. By marking down my 2nd choice etc. I would be able to give the finger simultaneously to: 1) predators that tell me not to vote for my 1st party, 2) pundits that tell me that majorities mandates are bad, and 3) to the glee club that chimes on about my MP not having 50% support at the end of the vote. Not a bad return for a few seconds work.
Next up: multi-member STV for an elected Senate. The public might actually support a majority resistant mechanism for an upper house that doesn't form a gov't. Australia anyone?
With Ontario's strong rejection of MMP yesterday, I think it's time to move onto other issues. I was in favour of MMP, but the people have spoken - in several provinces - and the conclusion is that they do not wish to change the way they elect their politicians. It sucks to be a Green Party member these days.
The failed electoral reform initiatives in several provinces are really indicative of how difficult it is to get the people onside any type of real, lasting change. This is why the sheeple scream and cry every time a politician (usually a Conservative one) logically suggests reforming our archaic marxist healthcare system into something more in line with the successful hybrid systems in place throughout Europe.
Why does the referendum question never ask: Do you want PR or FPTP?
I think if you ask that and if a 50% plus one majority want it then you can do another referendum to choose MMP, STV or any other version of PR.
Yyc may be implying this, but the detail is little known: the bill for an elected Senate proposed by the Harper government already includes multi-member STV, as in the Australian Senate.
I'm not sure that it would actually work out as multi-member, given that a province would likely not have two senate vacancies to fill at a time. Still, the most propitious place for electoral reform in Canada is the body that currently has no elections at all.
MG,
I was not aware that the multi-member STV was actually in the details of the senate voting bill, but if the public actually values having non-coalition majorities from time to time the lower house is the logical place for single member STV and the upper house for multi-member STV.
I'm all for drifting toward a Triple A Senate. First aussie style elections, and then aussie style effectiveness & aussie stlye equality.
I like the idea of more majorities in a rep by pop lower house that forms gov'ts and fewer majorities in a regionally balanced upper house that checks gov't.
anon,
STV is not a form of PR. Single member STV is like an instant run off at the riding level. It will produce majorities similiar to FPTP. Multi-member STV can produce results closer to PR as the number elected per riding is increased.
MG,
While I agree with you about the Senate the most propitious move would be for the gov't to propose single member STV for the Commons.
The folks most likely to oppose it are PR advocates (This good is the enemy of their perfection). The aftermath of Ontario's MMP disaster is as good a time as any to bring forward an improvement the public would welcome. After MMP's rejection the NDP might support single member STV as a foil to Liberal strategic vote stampeding and as an opportunity to pick up a few ridings.
Try harder and he could be Jeffrey Simpson? Puh - fucking - lease. The man is consistently wrong on anything outside of Canada and consistently boring and predicatably boring and lacking in insight on anything within Canada. Only Hugh Windsor was more boring a read than Simpson. Also Simpson is a ideological squish repelled by fresh ideas and new thinking. Al least Andrew saw something here he liked and pushed for it. Simpson would have given us 700 words on "change can mean things change." DUH.
I decided at the last minute i was uncomfortable with closed lists and voted no. I would vote yes for multi member STV though
My preference for electoral reform for Canada is single member STV (i.e. instant runoff) for the Commons,
with the popular vote used for a PR Senate (based on 5 equal regions and 5% vote used for the cutoff for representation with the region).
Lists would comprised from defeated candidates, as ranked by the percentage of popular vote they obtained. i.e. The losers with the highest percentage of the vote would get the Senate seats.
A joint vote of the Commons and Senate would be required to resolve disputes between the two.
No, Andrew needs to try harder to be more like Jeffrey Simpson. Old male Canadian pundits are uniformly buffoons. Read the tripe David Warren produces. Or Paul Jacksons embarrasing revalations about his sex life. Even the sainted Dalton Camp was dull. Young(er) guys like Colby Cosh, Jonathan Kay, Dand Gardiner, Doug Saunders or Paul Wells are great, but (with the exception of Lawrence MArtin, more a book-writer than a journalist), only Jeffrey Simpson has avoided becoming like the cranky old man at the end of the bar still railing against Pierre Truduau, his slutty wife, and the metric system.
Old male Canadian columnists have a choice between being wierd or being boring. Andrew Coyne, now entering his pre-dotage, needs to make the choice.
wsisyw,
Instant has-beens in the Senate instead of stale ones? You'd end up with a Senate controlled by bellweather ridings. I'd prefer multi-member STV to elect Senators who actually wanted the job.
Some of the anonymous people have a lot of nerve. Maybe it's just one person.
Even if you disagree with AC (as I do, since I prefer FPTP), he has been putting forth fair arguments and interesting commentary.
I'll take AC over Simpson any day of the week.
In my opinion, there is likely no (or very little) relationship between PR/FTPT and the left/right spectrum, nor is it likely there any relationship between PR/FTPT and economic freedom.
It seems to me the main difference is whether the mandate to govern is given by the election results (FPTP) or by the wrangling that occurs between politicians after the election results (PR).
Another lame argument - you need to look at the history of why PR was introduced in most of those countries. In almost all cases it was a response of Liberal-Conservative parties to the rise of socialist/labour parties after universal suffrage. They initiated PR so that they could form coalition governments together and prevent a socialist majority government.
The situation in Canada, however, is the opposite, where the left is divided, and the right is united.
So unlike Sean I do think there are right-left effects, but they depend on the system.
We're Canadians, we fear change.
"outside of Canada, the US, and the UK"
Don't want Canada mentioned in the same sentence with those losers.
What the hell do those insignificant political entities know about democracy?
The more I look at the rest of the world, the more I realize that Andrew's argument (paraphrased)that "everybody's doing it" doesn't hold water.
So, in surrealist mode, PR is more suitable for countries that rank higher in economic freedom?
I look at that list and I see one common denominator: ethnic homogeneity. The economic relationship is as spurious as it gets; give me a strong, stable CEO style dictatorship such as China and I'll give you hockey stick economic growth.
Canada has never been so fragmented, not just ethnically but along gender, sexual orientation and immigration lines. The Canadian narrative, which AC recently mocked, is largely based on division and has been since 1867.
I voted against MMP because it would shift Ontario to the left and be a trojan horse for installing unelected females and minorities to the legislature as an affirmative action scam, and idea Ontario rejected when they defeated Bob Rae. Additionally, the propaganda from the pro MMP camp was of such poor quality and its propoents *generally* so radically left wing that it was a total tipoff that MMP was a dog.