The Democracy Index lists the world's countries in order of democratic quality.
In comparison with our rating last year (see blog "Democrary Index 2019"), Canda is rated higher. Although why that is, I have no idea.
Of the countries listed here, Canada is #5 behind only Norway, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand. The top five show good variety of electoral system - three use party-list proportional representation, NZ is Mixed Member proportional and Canada is First Past The Post. Only Canada and two other countries in the developed world still use that system that dates back to the 1600s. They are UK (a "full democracy" #16) and U.S. (a "flawed democracy" at #26).
last year we at #7 tied with Denmark.
That year Canada beat Denmark on "Functioning of government" and "Civil liberties".
Denmark had us beat on "Electoral system and pluralism." I am not sure how that has changed.
Electoral system: Denmark has fairer electoral system than Canada.
Membership of the Danish parliament - Folketing - is based on proportional representation of political parties, with a two-percent electoral threshold. Denmark elects 175 members to the Folketing, with Greenland and the Faroe Islands electing an additional two members each — 179 members in total. This compares well to our government where more than four times the number of votes (Denmark 2019 3.5M votes, Canada 2019 18M votes) elected less than twice the number of Denmark's representatives, Canada's 338 MPs.
The Danish parliament is more pluralistic.
Pluralism includes the number of parties in the parliament. 26 parties ran in Denmark's 2019 election while in Canada 21 ran. While 14 parties were elected to the Danish parliament, only five parties (and an Independent) are represented in Canada's House of Commons (and only one or two parties plus Independents in the Senate).
In Denmark's case, the largest party took 26 percent of the vote and about the same proportion of the seats. In Canada the second-most-popular party, but with plurality support in 86 percent of the country, formed minority government.
The high quality of Denmark's pluralism arises from its electoral system:
Denmark's Constitution requires for "equal representation of the various opinions of the electorate", and for regional representation to be secured.
The regional representation is achieved through having 10 districts in Denmark proper and two other districts - one for Faroe Islands and one for Greenland.
(The number of districts in Denmark proper is equal to the number of Canada's provinces. But each of our provinces, excepting the very smallest (PEI), is larger than the entire country of Denmark, excluding Greenland. So Canada copying Denmark's use of only ten districts would not work even for our more-thickly-populated provinces (that is, leaving out the sparsely-populated territories. But STV covering a city or a half or third of a large metropolis would work, if the number of seats was 10 or less. This was proven in Winnipeg's successful use of 10-seat district for many years to elect MLAs using STV.)
175 members are elected in Denmark proper, while Greenland elects two and the Faroe Islands elect two members.
In Denmark proper 135 seats are elected by proportional representation in 10 districts, and 40 supplementary seats are allotted to make out for the difference between district and nationwide vote. The 135 seats are distributed to the parties by the D'Hondt method of the party-list system of proportional representation and the 40 supplementary seats by the Sainte-Laguë method. Each party may choose among a number of methods for how the seats won by that party are to be distributed among the candidates.
The result is proportional representation; however, in rare cases, the biggest parties may gain one or two seats extra from smaller parties.
The voter may vote for a party list, one of the candidates on a party list, or an independent candidate.
Parties (usually district party assemblies) decide on the nomination of candidates before the election. When co-nomination is assigned, candidates are elected according to personal votes. When priority order is assigned, only an extreme number of personal votes can change the rank.
Parties must either pass the threshold, 2 percent of the national vote, or gain a district seat in order to gain any supplemental seats that the party may be due. Though very rare, it is possible for a party to gain a district seat without getting 2 percent of the national vote. There is also an esoteric third rule that allows a party to be represented, if it has enough votes in two of the three areas that the country is divided into. No party has ever fulfilled this rule without getting 2 percent of the national vote.
Thus any party with at least two percent of the vote will be awarded approximately its proportional share of the seats.
While in Canada pluralism is not a goal of our electoral system:
election of MPs is done by 338 single-member districts, in each of which up to 65 percent of the votes are ignored and wasted, not helping to elect any members. The wastage produced bizarre results. In 2019, it took 59,000 Conservatives outside Alberta/Sask to win a seat, while in AB/Sask it took only 38,000. 346,000 Liberal votes in AB/Sask were not enough to win even one seat. 235,000 NDP voters in Alberta and Saskatchewan elected just one MP.
Denmark beats us on "Political participation" - 85 percent voter turn-out in Denmark itself, somewhat lower turn-out in the Faroe islands and Greenland, Denmark's overseas possession. Turn-out in Canada was 67 percent.
-----------------------------------------------------
Looking at other countries in the 2020 rating
U.S. is #26 out of #167 on the Democracy Index. But it is using a cobbled-together system out of the 1700s so what can we expect?
Of the 24 "Full Democracies," all but two (Canada and UK) use proportional representation of some sort.
STV
The 21 pro-rep countries among the Full Democracies include two that use STV.
Ireland is #8.
Australia (#9) uses pro-rep just for Senate elections.
Ireland and Australia and one other are the only countries that use STV today.
The third STV country - Malta - places a disappointing #30, perhaps because it still has a two-party system. I understand corruption is also a problem in that fiery passionate Mediterranean country.
The only Full Democracies that do not use PR at all are Canada and UK. Both use FPTP, but in each, honest elections and regard for law and order ensure a high rating of some sort.
Canada's constitution calls for Public Order and Good Government. Who can be against good government? If only good government was taken literally - to mean a government elected by good and effective votes. FPTP is legendary for resulting in half or more of the votes cast being ineffective. Maybe a new system, one that wastes but a few votes, will come some day.
In the world, there are
24 Full Democracies, from Norway (#1) to South Korea (#23)
56 Flawed Democracies from France (#24) to Guyana (#75)
41 Hybrid Regimes from Bangladesh (#76) to Nigeria (#110), plus Burkin Faso at #116
54 Authoritarian Regimes from Jordan (#114) to North Korea (#167).
The Index awards ties, such as Canada and Denmark tying for #7. This confuses the numbering. (The Democracy Index would be cleaner if it did not award ties.)
---------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The numbers in the "Democracy Index by regime type" section of the Wikpedia "Democracy Index" page are erroneous.
Overall, 178 countries.
------------------------------------------------
Some pro-rep systems are more proportional than others:
There is an idea out there that a district with 20 or 15 seats does not produce proportional results. But leaving aside the threshold question, which can produce un-proportional results, a pro-rep election in a seat with 20 seats would produce election of any candidate that had 4.76 percent of the vote. Each voting block that has 4.76 percent of the vote will elect one member, and there is nothing the other 95 percent can do about it.
This looks good compared to Canada's elections. In Canada a group of 20 single-member seats (like the example above electing 20 representatives) might, and often does, awards all 20 seats to one party that has less than 45 percent of the vote across the 20 districts.
Luxemburg, Spain, Mauritius, and Costa Rica are said to be questionable as pro-rep countries, but I would say Luxembourg and Costa Rica are easily acceptable.
Spain and Mauritius do have districts with low District Magnitude but are listed in the Wikipedia list of PR countries.
Luxembourg 2018 election (according to Wikipedia) describes a district-level PR with pretty high District Magnitude.:
"The 60 members of the Chamber of Deputies will be elected by proportional representation in four multi-member constituencies; 9 in Nord constituency, 7 in Est, 23 in Sud and 21 in Centre. Voters can vote for a party list or cast multiple votes for as many candidates as there are seats."
A District Magnitude of 21 and 23, the number of seats in a district, creates very proportional results.
Costa Rica (again from Wikipedia):
The 57 members of the Legislative Assembly are elected using closed list proportional representation through the largest remainder method from seven multi-member constituencies with between four and 19 seats, which are based on the seven provinces.
A 19-seat district is pretty high DM as well.
----------------------------------------------------
So kudos to Canada for being #5.
Honest, unbiased election officials and regard for civil liberties help our system as a whole overcome the shortcomings and bizarre results produced by our First Past The Post voting system. If we would adopt a system that did not waste votes like our present system (pretty much anything would do that! but in particular STV, party-list pro-rep or MMP) we would reassure voters that their vote would not be wasted. Voter turn-out would be bound to rise, thus moving us up higher in the Index!
Let's go for it!
Thanks for reading.
======================================
Comments