How do we better communicate to politicians that PR is in their best interest?
Here are some ways - many of these are technical in nature and a bit wonky.
They need dumbing-down -- no offence to politicians.
PR would make politics more a stable thing, less of a chancy adventure, a risky business venture, by making elections more closely connected to popular feeling.
Under FPTP there are many accidental elections of a candidate who has just a minority of the vote
Compare this with with STV providing district-level PR
-- there would be less accidental election by a candidate who has just a minority of the vote. (Under STV, candidates are elected with each having a minority of the votes. Unlike under FPTP, in STV many are elected with minority of the vote so it is fair.)
Under PR, loss of a seat would be less accidental. A small changes in vote tallies is exaggerated under FPTP sometimes.
Under FPTP, if happens often that many government seats are lost if a government's popularity drops just a relative smidgeon.
Alberta NDP (government 2015-2019) in 2019 lost a quarter of their votes and more than half their seats.
This makes governments unstable and defensive. Government elected to mass dominance of seats but with minority or scant majority of votes knows they are liable to defeat (despite their seat count).
Opposition parties are sidelined and get little respect
Opposition parties (perhaps with as few as 10 percent less votes than the leading party) are sidelined with fewer seats than is their due.
2012 Alberta election NDP got 34 percent of vote and only 17 seats.
Progressive Conservative got 44 percent of vote and 61 seats.
2015 Alberta election P-C won 10 seats with 28 percent of vote, NDP got 54 seats with 41 percent of the vote.
FPTP surprise
Candidate running for election on behalf of a governing party too often find that their party has suffered small drop in popularity and has now dropped precipitously to the status of opposition runt party with a relative mere handful of seats.
FPTP often allows change in local situation to have great effect on the legislature.
Without some mechanism for looking at wider vote tallies, the FPTP in separate small districts leads to unfairness, and candidates with things to say to be frustratingly left out in the cold.
For example,
No Conservative was elected in any Edmonton district in 1959 because no Conservative candidate led in any one of the nine Edmonton districts, although Conservative candidates together had at least twice the votes of any one of the nine successful SC candidates in the city.
No CCF was elected in any Edmonton district in 1959 because no CCF candidate led in any one of the nine Edmonton districts, although CCF candidates together had more votes than any one of the nine successful SC candidates in the city.
The lack of Conservative Edmonton voice and CCF Edmonton voice - in fact only one Conservative MLA and no CCF MLAs sat in the 1959-1963 legislature in total - meant that who knows how much of the issues affecting Edmonton were not addressed.
Under STV in 1955, at least one Conservative, at least one Social Credit-er and at least one Liberal was elected in Calgary and in Edmonton.
Under STV in 1955, a CCF was elected in Edmonton as well.
STV produced representation to many parties in each place. You would think that kind of fairness would appeal to a politician, at least to a party leader.
Question: Do party leaders really benefit from regionalism within their own jurisdiction?
Does any leader of an Alberta party benefit from making political views in rural Alberta look very different from the political views in Alberta cities, or southern Alberta different from northern Alberta, as happens under FPTP?
If yes, then stick to FPTP.
But if no, STV or other PR system is way to go for future Alberta elections.
FPTP often allows change in local situation to have great effect on government.
1986 Alberta election -- many P-C cabinet ministers lost their seats, which happened to be in Edmonton, due to shift in Edmonton voters opinions. This deprived the (re-elected) P-C government of experienced cabinet talent. This loss of experienced cabinet ministers might have lead to the fact that the Conservative government from 1986 on to its final defeat in 2015 never but once exceeded 53 percent popularity. In the minds of almost half the voters the government was not doing a good enough job. Only in 2001 did its ratings rise temporarily to 63 percent.The loss of cabinet ministers in 1986 may have contributed to the government low ratings. although too the government's low ratings in 1986 led to the cabinet minsters losing their spots in the first place.
Under FPTP, voters in a cabinet minister's home district may respect a cabinet minister but want to send a message to the government - they can only do so by voting against the local government candidate - the cabinet minister.
But in city-wide multi-member STV even if most of the party's voters flee to support other candidates, the hard-core nub of party supporters if they have quota would elect the experienced cabinet minister - if that was their wish.
A closed-list party-list PR system would do the same thing
Under STV, the voters in that city-wide multi-member district would have liberty to vote for the cabinet minister or they could choose to support the party but not the man by switching to support an up-and-comer of the same party running in the district alongside the cabinet minister.
Under STV, there would be more opportunity for respect to those with seniority, if the voters desire to grant it.
But under STV votes would have to be earned. A candidate could not slide into legislature on the party label. This would make election more difficult for some but would raise the quality of legislators and government members. Being part of the legislature and the government would be more respected.
Perhaps this leads to the matter of how a politician elected under FPTP has the uncertainty of not knowing whether he or she was chosen because of own ability and credibility or because of the party label. Under STV or other multi-seat PR system, where more than one candidate of each party runs in each district, this would be cleared up.
There is also certainty that you --- as hard-core Conservative or environmental leftist or feminist or property-owner or anti-speedtrap activist or historical preservationist or developer or Catholic or Protestant - or any other flavour or colour or sentiment - running under whatever label you do ---
will under STV have the assurance that as long as you have support from a quota of the voters you will be elected and there is nothing the other voters can do about it.
You have assurance under STV that in a five-seat district if you have 16 percent support you will be elected. You do not need to pander to the other interests or water down your stand. You do not need to glad hand and show up to social events unless you want to. Politics will become less of a popularity contest, as high schoolers used to phrase it, and more of a serious debate and discussion on policy.
Under STV there would be less acrimonious polarization. To be elected usually requires getting vote transfers from other candidates. Extreme candidates and extreme parties are at disadvantage generally speaking. I admit this somewhat contradicts my no-pandering point above, but there is difference between pandering to other interests and finding common ground with other specific groups. Quota is all you need to be elected.
Under FPTP you need to be the most popular person in the small single-seat district, with say 34 percent of the vote.
Under STV, you just need to have 16 percent of the vote in a five-seat district for example.
However switching from FPTP to STV will improve some candidates' chances and hurt others' chances.
It may be easier to get 16 percent across a city than 34 percent in one part of the city or visa versa
Say for someone pushing retail workers rights it may be easier to get 34 percent of the vote in a retail-worker-heavy section of town than across a city.
But someone pushing electoral reform will likely have easier time in a city -wide district than under FPTP. Our supporters are spread across the city, not collected in pockets, I would guess.
Wider geographic range under STV = less gerrymandering
Wider geographic range under STV or other multi-member PR system so vote-splitting by district boundaries is less likely.
That part of politics would be cleaner and vote effectiveness improve, potentially increasing voter turn-out and making the political game a more respectable line of work.
PR would make governments less subject to wild fluctuations, give more stability, decrease glad-handing, give politicians more respect, stimulate more intelligent debate.
Thanks for reading.
====================================
Comentários