Proportional Representation

Maybe the following will get my point across.

Take a look at what happened to health care reform in the U.S.--before Scott Brown came along. Quite naturally, there were only two parties in Congress. The D's and the R's. The D's had a supermajority (60 votes) but they still couldn't pass it.

What happened? The short version: conservative Democrats opposed abortion language in the bill. Liberal Democrats opposed the entire bill because it, in their words, didn't go far enough. Moderate Democrats pretty much got caught in the middle.

The U.S. is only a two-party system in name. In reality, there are at least FOUR parties. Liberal D's, moderate D's, conservative D's, and R's. We are two parties in name only--in action, the U.S. already has exactly the multi-party system you guys are talking about in such glowing terms.

Do your nifty-sounding multi-party systems produce better actual results? The answer is no. Not. Nyet. Nischt. Not in a million years. No way Jose. Icksnay, negatory, nope, nuh-uh, and (man falling off of a cliff) NNNOOOOOOooooooooooooooo

<SPLAT>

Yeah no. You seem to recognise the benefits of heterogeneity so why not go whole hog? If those different groups were separate parties they could drop the sham, drop the false loyalty to each other, and actually represent their views properly and openly. And let the voters choose amongst them.

That's the other big benefit. Even if we accepted for a second this silly notion that power doesn't spread wider when there's more parties, fluid party dynamics and no absolute majorities, there's still the huge plus that people can vote for someone who actually represents their views more accurately. If there's "no difference" in terms of how widely power is spread, why not have a system where people can at least choose between more than two (the only two realistic) vague, ill-defined options?

BasketCase said:

Maybe the following will get my point across.

Take a look at what happened to health care reform in the U.S.--before Scott Brown came along. Quite naturally, there were only two parties in Congress. The D's and the R's. The D's had a supermajority (60 votes) but they still couldn't pass it.

What happened? The short version: conservative Democrats opposed abortion language in the bill. Liberal Democrats opposed the entire bill because it, in their words, didn't go far enough. Moderate Democrats pretty much got caught in the middle.

The U.S. is only a two-party system in name. In reality, there are at least FOUR parties. Liberal D's, moderate D's, conservative D's, and R's. We are two parties in name only--in action, the U.S. already has exactly the multi-party system you guys are talking about in such glowing terms.

Do your nifty-sounding multi-party systems produce better actual results? The answer is no. Not. Nyet. Nischt. Not in a million years. No way Jose. Icksnay, negatory, nope, nuh-uh, and (man falling off of a cliff) NNNOOOOOOooooooooooooooo

<SPLAT>

Click to expand...

How many democrats are on the ballot come election day? One? I thought so.
Use proportional representation, or any other system that is supportive of more than two viable parties, and voters will actually have the choice between all those different democrats. At the moment it is a choice between Republicans or the one flavour of Democrat the party has provided in your area.

And there's more than one type of Republican, too. I can think of at least 3, offhand. Maybe 4 if you count "Republicans in areas where they have to be Democrats to keep office."

I can't think of a way for giving your preferred candidate a lower preference to be more effective than giving them your first.

Click to expand...

Lets say 3 candidates (A, B, and C) recieving 45, 30, and 25% with no strategic voting and all of C support the B second, and B voters split evenly on second choice.
No strategic voting: C eliminated as first choice B wins over A 55-45 on second choice.
However, 6% of the most popular candidate: first votes are A-39, B-30, C-31. Second votes revert to original choice with A-60 and C-40, giving A the win.

Not saying it is likely, since it does present considerable risk, but it is a potential problem.


I definitely prefer voting for an individual over a party. On that basis I voted against proportional representation in the recent Ontario election.

Though I do recognize the faults of districts and some benefits of proportional representation, it is a balance and you must decide which you prefer.

If a hundred million voters vote for health care reform and two hundred million vote against it, a hundred million people just had their votes thrown in the toilet.

Click to expand...

In simple terms, lets say there are 300 voters evenly divided into three districts in a simple two party, with each voting the opposite way and no free will to candidates.
Now say:
District 1: 100 A, 0 B
District 2: 49 A, 51 B
District 3: 49 A, 51 B
Overall: 198 A, 102 B

Representation: 1 A, 2 B.

In this case, if A was for healthcare, despite a huge majority of the people supporting them, they lose and healthcare is shot down.

And if we are talking about an actual congressional election, a party can have support of 49% of the entire populace, and get 0 seats, giving them no power instead of significant minority power (and even control on some issues if they can get a couple opponents to support them).

But once again, it does not solve everything, and I personally oppose it.

say1988 said:

Lets say 3 candidates (A, B, and C) recieving 45, 30, and 25% with no strategic voting and all of C support the B second, and B voters split evenly on second choice.
No strategic voting: C eliminated as first choice B wins over A 55-45 on second choice.
However, 6% of the most popular candidate: first votes are A-39, B-30, C-31. Second votes revert to original choice with A-60 and C-40, giving A the win.

Not saying it is likely, since it does present considerable risk, but it is a potential problem.

Click to expand...

Second vote would actually be A-54, C-46. Only the bottom candidate's votes are redistributed to preferences.

Such a situation is highly unlikely in real life, because the policies of A are clearly abhorrent enough for C that all second preferences went to B, that people who support A are unlikely to want to risk C winning, just for the chance of getting B to lose. All of A's preferences would be directed to B.

However you have demonstrated, as requested, a way of voting against your own interests to get the candidate you want.

PiMan said:

How many democrats are on the ballot come election day? One? I thought so.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But I already said the U.S. is a two-party system in name only. How many liberals are on the ballot come election day? Several. There's the Democrats, and the Greens, and the Peace and Freedom Party, and at least one Socialist party.

And that one Democrat on the ballot? I already explained how that one Democrat can be any one of several different liberal factions--the U.S. Senate currently has liberal, moderate, and right-leaning Democrats.

Arwon said:

And there's more than one type of Republican, too. I can think of at least 3, offhand. Maybe 4 if you count "Republicans in areas where they have to be Democrats to keep office."

Click to expand...

Yep. I just didn't bother to point that out in my example because all the Republicans combined still had nearly zero influence.

It strikes me that most of the arguments made against Proportional Representation lean heavily on a certain sort of mentality cultivated by non-proportional systems, such as the apparent obsession with "Winners" and "Losers", and the assumption that there can only ever be two directly contrary positions on any issue. (Although, to be fair, Basket has acknowledged the overly-simplistic nature of the latter belief.)

Second vote would actually be A-54, C-46. Only the bottom candidate's votes are redistributed to preferences.

Click to expand...

Sorry got into a true runoff system there.
And I agree, it is a difficult situation to get into and extremely risking, especially since, in this situation it would be almost certain that people voting for A would prefer B over C.
Besides, using first past the post, strategic voting is far more common, voting based on who you believe has a chance to win, not who you want to win, especially in parliamentary system where you tend to want your riding represented by someone in the ruling party.
Like you said, just fulfilling the request.

But I already said the U.S. is a two-party system in name only. How many liberals are on the ballot come election day? Several. There's the Democrats, and the Greens, and the Peace and Freedom Party, and at least one Socialist party.

Click to expand...

Of course since none of them have an actual chance of winning it is generally disadvantageous to vote for them rather than the Democrats, making it an effective two party system, with a rare exception. True, that not all democrats have the same ideals, but you don't have any options as to which to vote for.

I don't know why anyone other than an extremist would favor proportional representation over FPTP. I'd prefer to keep the Wobblies and Tancredoites firmly chained to moderate political parties, thank you very much.

h4ppy said:

I don't know why anyone other than an extremist would favor proportional representation over FPTP. I'd prefer to keep the Wobblies and Tancredoites firmly chained to moderate political parties, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

It's been a position of both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists in recent years, both of whom are firmly centrist parties. The two-party dichotomy is artificially imposed, remember, and in no way a natural arrangement; it is quite possible for centrists to disagree.

While there are, unfortunately, rules that have been added in my country over the years which make it so that they system very much does favor Rs/Ds it does not actually impose a two party system over the government. As a matter of fact, of the four countries I know of which use FPTP only the United States has only two parties which regularly send members to Congress/the Senate. (come to think of it, doesn't Mexico have FPTP too, make that five to one then) And while the Lib Dems and SNP might not be extremist the BNP is and they are the ones who would benefit the most from moving away from FPTP.

The other counties with FPTP have essentially 2 party systems too, but which parties those are can vary from area to area. It is quite rare for more than 2 parties to have a serious chance in a single district, even year to year. It is not that uncommon for a "local" party to displace a "national" one though, especially when the debate is more over local than national issues.

I don't know why anyone other than an extremist would favor proportional representation over FPTP. I'd prefer to keep the Wobblies and Tancredoites firmly chained to moderate political parties, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

It only really matters when you have a strong third party (less than 1% voted for the top third party in the 2008 House election), but can be noted in the US senate where the democrats (and democrat supporters) got 60% of the seats with under 52% of the vote. In countries with strong third parties, it can become more apparent (Canada's Greens have almost 7% of the vote and no seats, while the conservatives got 46% of seats on 37% of votes. These parties might be further from centre than the current prominent ones, but they are far from crazy extremists.

h4ppy said:

While there are, unfortunately, rules that have been added in my country over the years which make it so that they system very much does favor Rs/Ds it does not actually impose a two party system over the government. As a matter of fact, of the four countries I know of which use FPTP only the United States has only two parties which regularly send members to Congress/the Senate. (come to think of it, doesn't Mexico have FPTP too, make that five to one then)

Click to expand...

I meant that it was a cultural imposition, more of mindset than of political reality, and one which you are playing into. The very notion that there are, by default, two monolithic positions at the heart of all political systems is false; there is a broad spectrum of positions, in all directions, which are all equally deserving of representation which FPTP fails to provide.

And while the Lib Dems and SNP might not be extremist the BNP is and they are the ones who would benefit the most from moving away from FPTP.

Click to expand...

I've always felt this to be a week argument against proportional representation; the purpose of democracy is to give the people fair representation, not to protect the political status quo. To knowingly avoid the former simply because embracing it would allow representation to those who's views you find unpalatable is hardly consistent with the supposed principles of a democratic society.
Certainly, I do not see the benefits granted by placing power firmly in the hands of a few squabbling behemoths as outweighing the danger posed by allowing the BNP the handful of seats that they may gain.

say1988 said:

It only really matters when you have a strong third party (less than 1% voted for the top third party in the 2008 House election), but can be noted in the US senate where the democrats (and democrat supporters) got 60% of the seats with under 52% of the vote. In countries with strong third parties, it can become more apparent (Canada's Greens have almost 7% of the vote and no seats, while the conservatives got 46% of seats on 37% of votes. These parties might be further from centre than the current prominent ones, but they are far from crazy extremists.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and the UK, with our primitive two-and-a-half party system is even more blatant. In the last election, Labour gained 55% of the seats with 35% of the vote, while the Liberals only gained 9% of the seats with 22% of the vote (the Tories got 30% from 32%). In any other nations, Labour and the Liberals would be considered relatively close competitors, but in the UK the Liberals are a borderline minor party, simply because they lack geographically concentrated support. That, my friends, is not democracy.

(The BNP, for the record, got 0.7%, which would guarantee them, what, two seats? Hardly a major threat. Certainly, I'd give the Greens (1%) their three or four in exchange for that.)

The other counties with FPTP have essentially 2 party systems too, but which parties those are can vary from area to area. It is quite rare for more than 2 parties to have a serious chance in a single district, even year to year. It is not that uncommon for a "local" party to displace a "national" one though, especially when the debate is more over local than national issues.

Click to expand...

In Canada there are viable 3rd parties. Not to win overall, but to hold significant power in parliament, and using FPTP various provinces have elected third party governments (as much as Ontario would like to purge that from memory) and there are plenty where three or four parties have a shot.

Traitorfish said:

I've always felt this to be a week argument against proportional representation; the purpose of democracy is to give the people fair representation, not to protect the political status quo.

Click to expand...

I find the protection of the status quo against sudden turns in public opinion to be one of the best parts of America's unique system of government.

Certainly, I do not see the benefits granted by placing power firmly in the hands of a few squabbling behemoths as outweighing the danger posed by allowing the BNP the handful of seats that they may gain.

Click to expand...

They'd gain a lot more than "a few" if proportional representation were enacted- their fortunes have risen dramatically since the last election and even more people would vote for them if they had what looked to be a shot at getting seats and, not only that, but candidates across all districts as well.

(The BNP, for the record, got 0.7%, which would guarantee them, what, two seats? Hardly a major threat. Certainly, I'd give the Greens (1%) their three or four in exchange for that.)

Click to expand...

There are about 650 MPs currently so they would have had around 4 or five after the last election while the greens would have had six or seven- provided that the switch didn't effect either groups vote total.

h4ppy said:

While there are, unfortunately, rules that have been added in my country over the years which make it so that they system very much does favor Rs/Ds it does not actually impose a two party system over the government. As a matter of fact, of the four countries I know of which use FPTP only the United States has only two parties which regularly send members to Congress/the Senate. (come to think of it, doesn't Mexico have FPTP too, make that five to one then) And while the Lib Dems and SNP might not be extremist the BNP is and they are the ones who would benefit the most from moving away from FPTP.

Click to expand...

Australia has a 2 party system under IRV. The cause is single-member electorates more than FPTP. FPTP's contribution is simply to heavily handicap minor parties from ever getting any votes.

Hey, the Nationals are still a party.

Arwon said:

Australia has a 2 party system under IRV. The cause is single-member electorates more than FPTP. FPTP's contribution is simply to heavily handicap minor parties from ever getting any votes.

Click to expand...

Technically not. The National Party gets a reasonable number of seats. The Coalition is not a single party in most states.

Based on where things are heading, we have two major parties, but two notable minor parties. The UK has two and a half parties, we have two and two thirds.