![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9Hi Dad,
First off, an illustrative top-ten list I found:
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:
Hope you find this interesting,
Cam
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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 03:31 pm (UTC)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. :-).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 03:45 pm (UTC)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.