Convincing my Dad to consider Proportional Representation

[c9]

Hi Dad,

First off, an illustrative top-ten list I found:

10) In the 1990s, Canada ranks 109th among 163 nations in voter turnout, slightly behind Lebanon, in a dead heat with Benin, and just ahead of Fiji.

9) In 1984, the Progressive Conservatives win 50% of the votes but gain nearly 75% of the seats, close to an all-time record for the largest percentage of "unearned seats" [according to Fair Vote Canada --Cam] in any federal election.

8) In 2004, more than 500,000 Green voters fail to elect a single MP anywhere, while fewer than 500,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elect 22 Liberal MPs.

7) In 2000, twenty-two candidates become MPs despite winning less than 40% of the votes in their ridings.

6) The 2006 election produces a House with only 21% women MPs, with Canada now ranking 36th among nations in percentage of women MPs, well behind most Western European countries.

5) In 1993, the newly formed Bloc Quebecois comes in fourth in the popular vote, but forms the Official Opposition by gaining more seats than the second place Reform Party and third place Tories.

4) In 2000, 2.3 million Liberal voters in Ontario elect 100 Liberal MPs while the other 2.2 million Ontario voters elect only 3 MPs from other parties.

3) In 1993, more than two million votes for Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservatives translate into two seats – or one seat for every 1,000,000 votes. Meanwhile, the voting system gives the Liberal Party one seat for every 32,000 votes.

2) In 1984, when competing for the Liberal leadership, Jean Chretien tells reporters in Brandon, Manitoba, he would introduce proportional representation "right after the next election" if he became prime minister.

1) In 1993, Jean Chretien wins the election and begins his ten-year reign as prime minister. In three elections, he never wins more than 42% of the popular vote, but still forms "majority" governments thanks to the current voting system. He never gets around to introducing proportional representation.

(from http://www.fairvotecanada.org/en/node/148)

Here's a positive example of Proportional Representation you can read up on: Germany. They use MMP (mixed-member proportional), which I like a lot. Basically you vote once for your local MP, and once for your favourite party. Then the seats are allocated 50%+ by your local votes, just as we do now, and up to 49% by your party vote.

More countries to research: Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, Wales, Ireland.

Popular misconceptions:

Instability? Since 1949, Germany has had only three minority governments. Most others were formal majority coalitions. We use the word coalition incorrectly in Canada -- we often think of it as a short-term backroom deal -- but these were formal agreements, with Cabinet seats to both parties, and a stable governing pattern.

Disproportionate power to the fringe groups? This is a false argument, because we already have this and we pretend that it's OK. The BQ got 12% of the vote in 2004, but got 18% (fifty-four) of the seats. The Tories for 12% of the vote in 1993, but only 0.6% (two) of the seats.

Seats for the Marijuana Party and the Nazi Party? Canada currently blocks campaign funding for fringe groups by requiring 2% of the vote. Most PR systems require 3-5% of the vote before you get any seats at all.

More elections?
Ireland: 16 elections since 1948, 1 election every 3.63 years
Germany: 16 elections since 1949, 1 election every 3.56 years
Canada: 17 elections since 1949, 1 election every 3.35 years

But Italy and Israel! Italy and Israel!!
"...both Italy and Israel have historically used versions of pure party list proportional representation (Italy recently switched to a system more similar to Germany's) that Canadian electoral reformers are not interested in introducing in Canada anyway." (See Myth link below) [That's a relief to me! --Cam]


More reading:

• Myth #1: PR leads to minorities
  (http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/11/myth-1-proportional-representation.html)
• Well-written and accessible PR FAQ
  (http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2005/11/proportional-representation-faq.html)
• Descriptions and sample ballots for various PR systems
  (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm)
• Fair Vote Canada (they're a little shrill, maybe with some reason)
  (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/about_fairvoting)
• A PR Library
  (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm)
• Wikipedia Entry
  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_Representation)

Hope you find this interesting,
Cam

Comments

[mightycodking.livejournal.com]

On another note,

http://demanddemocraticdebates.ca/

If we want to stay with first past the post, another possibility is single transferable ballot, which at least makes sure whoever wins gets at least 50% of the "final" votes.

[sarah-sosiak.livejournal.com]

I take issue with point #6. It seems like it was stuck in there to rile us feminist types, but is the only point like that without numbers that suggest proporional voting would increase the number of candidates it's talking about.

(At least your elected leader -- granted this is State, not Federal -- isn't a former action hero who broke yet another bone this holiday season falling down on the ski slope.)

[sarah-sosiak.livejournal.com]

Not that my second comment was relavent, mind you. It's just there to rile the action hero-irony-loving types. :-).

[c9.livejournal.com]

Proportional representation systems do actually have greater gender balance. Also, since most systems include party-created lists, the parties have even more opportunity to present female candidates, whereas now each Canadian riding presents its own candidate, and today parties are punished when they parachute candidates in of their own choice.

[sarah-sosiak.livejournal.com]

See, that's the info I was looking for. :-).

[c9.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll write a separate post that starts "Dear Sarah" ... :)

[sarah-sosiak.livejournal.com]

Oh, please do!

No -- it wasn't you, it was the list. You'd be surprised how many things like that tend to have hard stats for everything else and a handwave to the women issue. Beacause, apparently, math is hard. Or women can't deal with reason. Or something.

This post likely did what it was set out to do -- I've never thought about the proportional representation issue before, but I'm thinking about it now. :-).

[c9.livejournal.com]

I understand. I'm a white man, so I'm entrenched in the system and I hate it when I catch myself missing that sort of thing. :)

[sarah-sosiak.livejournal.com]

I can be your non-white-male conscious if you’d like. So long as you'll be my non-$7-socialist conscious. :-).

At least you’re not one of those white men who likes to tell me that they “understand where I’m coming from” because they grew up in the ‘hood (I love that one. I have no clue what it’s like to grow up in a place where drama goes beyond who’s lawn has been looking weedy that week) or took women’s studies 101 at their fancy liberal arts college. I tend to make those guys cry.

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

Scenario: 45% of the Canadian population from coast-to-coast votes for independants as a rejection of the major parties, but only a couple of the candidates receive enough votes to win their ridings. How does a proportional system that partially distributes seats along party lines accommodate this scenario? In my eyes, to a degree at least, this model further entrenches and favours partisan politics. Is there a solution or an angle that I'm missing here?

P.S. Are you guys now in Fredericton, as originally planned?

[c9.livejournal.com]

Good point! Remember that you can't say "this model" when you're talking about PR. That's like saying "I like cheese, and because only some sandwiches have cheese, all sandwiches are unacceptable."

I don't know how the various PR types would adapt to this. But that's a very good point, so I'll have to start looking for that when I read. :)

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

true true.

Since I'm too lazy to search myself, do let me know if you come across anything through your research! It's really only the independants vs. parties issue that keeps me from embracing PR.

[canuckotter.livejournal.com]

Yup. That's the same issue that makes me hesitant about it all.

One possible explanation could be that since PR (especially the German model) tends to involve lots of small parties, while partisanship is an issue it's a lot less relevant and directed than in today's Canadian politics, because there are so many targets of partisan bullsh**. For example, right now the Tories bash the Liberals and (when they remember) the NDP. Under PR, in order for partisan politics to work, the Tories would have to attack the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, the Marijuana Party (I'd be willing to bet they'd get 2% or more of the vote under PR -- single-issue parties can do surprisingly well by times), and a half-dozen other parties that'd pop up. The partisan BS would be so spread out that it would stop being effective.

Also, because virtually all governments are coalition governments, inter-party cooperation becomes an essential skill to any party that wants to try taking power; hence, partisan politics actually would tend to work against a party, rather than for it.

That's my thinking. Dunno how accurate it is.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Pretty accurate! Canadians tend toward compromise, even when we think our governments are being extra-partisan. So the PR tendency toward compromise would serve us well, IMHO.

FYI, in the 2006 election, there were 14,817,159 valid ballots cast. That means 2% is over 296,000 votes. The Marijuana Party received only 9,171. Of course under PR people might be more willing to vote for someone other than the big 2/3/4/5 (depending on your location and perspective), so maybe they could break 2%. I think that people would maybe be a bit more serious about thinking about their votes under a PR system. But I'm pretty naive. :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

...and we're home in Kitchener. We drive to Ottawa the morning of the 30th.

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

Cool. Do you guys have plans for the evening of the 30th? I fly into Montreal around 5pm (I think) and hope the be back in Ottawa before 10pm. If you're interested in heading out to a bar, I'd be game. Otherwise, I'll see you at some point on the 31st! :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

We have dinner and evening plans for the 30th, but not night plans for the 30th. If you can convince Vinny, we're in.

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

The extent of my convincing will be proportional to the extent of my energy reserves on my return to Ottawa. If all goes well, I'll touch base on the evening of the 30th..

[c9.livejournal.com]

Cool. Call my cell anytime after 9pm.

[thespos]

For the record, I honestly love your political posts.

And on an unrelated topic... if someone... say, an American... was going to send a card... is the K-W address still appropriate? :-D

[c9.livejournal.com]

'tis. Until someone buys the condo. Which damn well better be in January. :)

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen this post before. Congratulations on laying everything out on the table! It always thrills me when people use my posts to try to convince people, but this is one of the best examples I've seen.

-the livejournal alter ego of someone you quote above

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

P.S. Did it work?

[c9.livejournal.com]

Ha! No response from my father, which is typical. I bought him a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" for Christmas, which he also has not responded to other than saying "hmmm."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Oh, how annoying. Ah well, at least you tried!

-J

[c9.livejournal.com]

I've become accustomed. :)

[c9.livejournal.com]

Thanks!