[copied from rushed email hurriedly written back in March 2024 -
I need to sit down and fix typos --- bear with me]
Democracy IMO is where citizens - adult citizens to be specific - majority of adult citizens control the government that governs over all people.
they control government by electing those who hold majority position in the chamber of power through elections and control it by holding power of re-election over thsoe they elect.
PR gurantees that the majority of votes cast elect the majority of elected members -whether in one party or several -
if no one party takes majority of seats, which can happen in any voting sytem, a working majority (made up of multiple parties' caucuses) can be assembled in the chamber by coalition, Supply-and-confidence agreement or simply passing budget and bills on an ad-hoc basis (this historical tradition in Canadian minroty governments)
These all last until they don't and the government loses a vote and ends its term.
under Can. law, the GG then has choice of calling an election or allowing another party with what backing it can muster to try to get majority support in the chamber and pass budgets and bills.
any voting system can produce minority government
because voting system is what happens in the district and what happens in a district mostly separate from the makeup of the chamber.
even IRV - a majoritarian system - does not necessarily produce majority government but only ensures that the majority of votes in a district are used to elect the winner - or the majority of votescast in the district that are still in play at the time of election.
(majoritarian rules can be applied to a chamber - Malta gives extra seats when only two parties in chamber and one party has majority of vres but not majority of seats. But few or no other countries have that direct insurance against false-majority governments.
yes this is politics and government, not what the philosophy of democracy is if you look back at ancient Greece etc.
But these are my thoughts.
The Can. Senate is not democratically elected at all.
the chamber (Can. HofC) rules by majority, not plurality
the districts used in Can. elections today elect by plurality,
single-winner FPTP used in prov. and fed. election,
city elections in Can. today are single-winner FPTP or multi-winner Block Voting - both elect by plurality.
(but in recent court case Springtide etc.) judge said:
Can. with few exceptions always has used FPTP,
single-seat districts are the rule/practice -
FPTP is certainly not unconstitutional and in fact judge determined it to be a constitutional requirement on the grounds that because single-seat districts are being used, any move to PR can only happen after constitutional change.
So I think there are good grounds for appeal, on grounds of the faulty history, faulty logic and the fact that today we expect better civil rights and democracy than what FPTP produces.)
MMDs were used in our history -- 2-seat fed. ridings -- so to get MMDs, constitutional change not required
and MMDs and single voting is all needed to have major improvement compared to present system.
even if we look at parliamentary democracy. constitutional monarchy that Canada is, voters in Can. should reasonably expect more democracy than what present electoral system produces.
parties with more votes should get more seats than aprties with fewer votes.
no party should take Power (majority of seats in the chamber) with less than majority of votes.
an intriquing Twilight Zone episode "He's Alive" has a wanna-be fuhrer saying "how can they say we are against minorities when we are a minority?"
he does not see that the real question is "why does he think he should have power when his group is a minority?"
And that is a question that is seldom asked in Can. democracy as we have it today.
There is great meme shared recently
A majority is not just one party but also the balance of rep. based on the left-right spectrum
and that balance in specific cases can be "off" even in a "pure PR" system, if it has flaws.
Israel in last election the majority of votes were not for the side of the government that won.
due to electoral threshold, some votes disregarded, and that shifted balance in the chamber from what votes as cast desired.
the recent history of the region might be very different if diff government in power..
Can. has been lucky - with our large land mass, scant pooluaiton and only one land neighbour (who can't find us on the map!), our unflappable or long-suffering citizenry, our history of false-majority governments has not been cuae of civil unrestor worse.
some times the false-majority gov't would have had the support of other party caucus in the chamber if it had come to it, and had majority control anyway
but sometimes not - if seats had been allocated to parties as per their voe share, other parties would have power and the citizens would have been better served.
despite general satisfactions with Can. conditions, but appraently due to something not quitre right, weather is partly to blame for sure, Can. has had dripple of people leave every year. so much so that we dont' have the poluaiton that we would've if we had sealed our borders in back in 1867 and not let anyone leave or come.
2 percent growth each year _ a pretty basic rate - means pop. doubles each 36 years.
despite mass immigration in some periods, and lesser amount in some years, Can. now has about half what it would have had with 2 percent annual growth and no out-migraiton or immigration.
due to many people leaving.
as many of those who leave go to the States, where politics is worse* - Can. electoral system and mis-govenrment can hardly be cause of this exodus but perhaps does contribute.
U.S. politics is worse but hides this with the single-winner presidential election/popularity contest, where contest is often bereft of policy, where policy choice offered for voters ranges from A-C, not A-Z, and historically whoever wins is applauded by both sides and anointed as almost a king.
Can. democracy has flaws -
log-rolling district politicians,
party machines dictating policy and controlling nominations, (nominations that pretty much deterine who wil lbe the next MP in safe seats)
disappointing PMs
- who is not necesarily charismatic if he is a "policy wonk" or out of touch,
-is too charismatic if he just runs as a good buddy buddy, (and does not want to make brave choices that move the country forward)
or a party machine functionary who found his way into big money as an elected politician and is a polarizing force, not an unifying nation-building one.
what is good for a district may be bad for the country and visa versa
what is good for a party (what appeals to party leadership) maybe bad for the country
and what is good for a party's base, what the voter base of governing party wants, may be bad for the majority of residents and hence for the country.
only majority election of majority of seats in the chamber guarantees that government we live under is will of majority, and even then what with broken promises and changing situation making it difficult to fulfill promises even if party actually wants to fulfill promises,, satisfaction of that majority may be dashed. (aand that is why frequent elecions are probably good idea - to allow voters direct effect of their sentiments more regularly
frequent elections are sign of instability but also source of democratic control - if elections are conducted in PR fashion, that is.
with district PR instead of "pure PR", or any list PR or MMP system that uses electoral thresholds, it may be possible for 51 percent of voters to elect something like 55 percent of seats.
while it has been shown that under FPTP with 341 districts, even if each district had same number of votes cast and the winner in each received 48 percent of the vote.
a party could take majority of seats (171 seats) with just 24 percent of the vote
(100/341X171X.48)
so that is bad.
(and potentially even smaller amount needed where government party wins in small district where there is small turn-out and winner takes less than 48 percent of the vote.)
in Can. history, 18 percent of votes cast is least amount that a winner has taken to win a district seat. (Toronto city 2012, AB prov 1944)
say MMDs used
the following table shows percentage to take majority in chamber
(assuming party needs to take quota (Droop) to win each seat, definitely true for morest seats under STV, and on average close to true for seats overall))
these percentages are based on votes counted as the candidate's share, not necessarily being only first preferences
-- where X voting used -- SNTV -- waste can be large - Droop quota does not apply.)
DM No. of districts quota (%)* min. vote share needed to take 171 seats or more
2 171 .0019 33 percent
3 114 .0022 37 percent
5 69 .0024 41 percent
7 49 .0026 44 percent
9 38 .0026 45 percent
18 19 .0028 47 perent
31 11 .0028 49 percent
* 100/(No. of districts) /DM plus 1)
variation in quota is due to the +1 used to calculate the quota. Where there are more districts, there are more +1 used to calculate the quota.
(of course in Canada a province with less than 31 seats cannot have MMD of 31.
and anyways this is just mathematical thought exercise as districts even of same DM would not have same number of votes cast -- a winner in one district would have fewer votes than winner elsewhere even if quota is taken as rule. But rnge would be less than FPTP today where a winner wins with 6,000 votes in one district versus winner winning with 60,000 votes elsewhere.
Stats for list PR where DM is large enough and/or top-up seats are numerous enough, to produce PR overall
- where effective votes are used, something upwards of 50 percent needed to win majority of seats
- but when ineffective votes are included in calculation (same as done above), correlation is not so straightforward -- we ca nsee where 47 percent was enough for a majority in the chamber
often under FPTP, winning candidate in a district does take majority of vote -- the majority result we hope for but sometimes with large number of surpus votes that might be useful elsewhere.
but in a third or more cases, the winner wins with less than 50 percent of votes cast.
and with the single-seat micro-districts used, number of votes cast and percentage received by winners varies substantially from district to district, leaving aside rural-urban disparity even.
having MMD means candidates are compared to each other scientifically with the most-popular ones being elected.
that is, when votes in district are taken as sole criterion for election - not like DMP where votes cast outside district are used to fill district second seats.)
the larger and fewer the districts, the more candidates are compared scientifically, and the less prone the electoral system is to lucky wins with relatively few votes, while those with more do not win.
these unequal results cumulate across the country and give some parties more seats than their share while others get no rep. or much less than they deserve.
disproportional misrepresentation
as well, decrease in votes received may result in loss of seats, or no change or even seeing more seats won than previously.
so not so easy under FPTP to vote out a government!
or sometimes very easy indeed!
change in party's seat count should have ben caused by change in votes received or at least change in vote share, but that not hnecessarily happen under Can. democracy today. at least not in straight mathematical relationship
コメント