reading interesting book Electoral Systems by David Farrell
says some say ER happens when parties see it as way to try to maximize seats
others say it is when parties don't want to look like old sticks and get in competition to be seen as the most modern
others say it is when parties lose control of situation and reformers outside gov't push so much they can't say no. (elite-mass interaction)
others get it through mischance - it is claimed NZ was helped on road to ER through a mistake in a delivered speech
many diff theories
1993 ish three countries got MMP Italy, NZ and another
a high mark for ER and one never equalled before or since.
in one teaching experiment, group of ordinary people (Brits?) started out not even knowing what FPTP really was and two hours later knew enough to select an alternative - they chose AMS.
apparently that mixture of local/regional PR and "local rep" (micro-local member/FPTP) looked good.
I don't see it myself (no offence to Scotland)
but I would stretch from STV to party-list in MMDs if I have to --- or to any other form of PR if I really have to!
===========
Farrell says some PR advocates go for simple system;
others for more complex and proportional systems with multi-tiers, etc.
I see STV as being robust and flexible and local enough and proportional enough
some describe it as extremely complicated
but actually it is so intuitive that it just behaves as if it is complicated.
- most votes are used to elect someone.
- mostly each successful candidate is elected with same number of votes (those who are elected are left with the same number of votes (quota))
- because of this equality, each party gets its fair share of seats (based on votes as they are used, not necessarily first preferences).
had discussion with a fellow the other day he said okay you have MMDs (example was DM-10)
he said "then the Conservatives run 10 candidates"
Me: they would not because they would not think they could elect all ten
[confusion]
Him: "okay, Liberals run ten and Conservatives run ten. one or other takes all ten seats. where's the fairness?
Me: one party would not win all ten if it is proportional unless they take all the votes.
[that was end of discussion]
He, like many, figure MMD means each voter must get as many votes as seats (Block Votong) which is not PR at all.
Block Voting is ubiquitous in people's thinking even if they don't know the term!
============================
Ian Urquhart 2015 article on PR in Alberta Views (https://albertaviews.ca/make-vote-count/)
"...Fair Vote Alberta’s Bailie notes how Alberta’s demographic profile has changed and how the province exhibits more social diversity than in the past. He thinks demographic change is generating “a value shift that will really demand a political system that reflects and supports the diversity of Albertans.” While proportional representation isn’t inevitable, Bailie thinks modifying the voting system to keep pace with social change is crucial.
Experiences elsewhere tell us, though, that evolving demographics on their own are not enough to get electoral change onto the political agenda. Political leadership from major parties—parties that have benefited from or hope to benefit from SMP’s ability to manufacture legislative majorities—is a vital catalyst.
U of C’s Stewart says “perfect storms” are generally needed to push major parties in this direction. These occur when, over the course of several successive elections, an SMP system fails to deliver what’s expected of it: majority wins for parties gaining the most votes and/or a functioning opposition—one that has the members needed to hold the government accountable.
NZ's storm
New Zealand’s journey to replace SMP with MMP began with such a storm. In the 1978 and 1981 elections, the centre-right National Party received fewer votes than Labour but won majorities in the legislature. These “wrong winner” elections and the personal commitment of Labour’s Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer helped put PR on the political agenda. In a 1993 referendum, New Zealanders approved the switch to MMP 54 to 46 per cent.
BC's storm
In recent history, BC has come closest to adopting proportional representation in Canada. Again, a perfect storm thrust the issue onto the political agenda. In 1996 the NDP won a majority despite receiving a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the Liberals. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell committed his party to turn the issue of electoral reform over to a Citizens’ Assembly if and when they were elected. The pressure to fulfill this promise remained after the 2001 election because, courtesy of the SMP, the Liberals decimated the NDP. The NDP received only two of the legislature’s 79 seats despite getting 21 per cent of the vote. They were a legislative opposition in name only.
The BC Liberals kept their promise and referred the elections matter to a Citizens’ Assembly, which recommended the province abandon SMP and replace it with STV.
In a 2005 referendum, 58 per cent of voters endorsed the switch. This impressive level of public support, however, wasn’t enough to usher in change, since the Liberal government had decided that 60 per cent of voters would need to support the change in order for it to be implemented. Some suggest this unreasonable hurdle was raised to appease Liberal MLAs who were quite happy with the current system. Better in their minds to look like reformers than to act like reformers.
A second referendum was held in 2009, and support for STV fell to 39 percent. What’s striking here is that Liberal voters, who split 50/50 on the question in 2005, abandoned STV in droves in the 2009 referendum. Only 20 per cent of Liberal voters supported STV this time—a 30 percent drop. Liberal voters, like their MLAs in the lead-up to the 2005 vote, had warmed to the dominant single-party governments the SMP system had delivered them."
==========
since 2004 (except 2015) a majority of voters have voted for one conservative party (PCs, then UCP)
2015 the conservative vote was split and NDP was only clear contender and took enough votes to have majority in the legislature (although not taking majority of votes).
so no ER-producing storm -- no series of wrong-winner or false-majority governments.
until there is a storm like that or until enough peole grow disenchanted with voitng system as is, there seems to be little hope for change - unless the sheer illegality and unfairness of FPTP evokes a legal decision that it is unconstitutional.
=======================================
Alhambra Books in Edmonton
50,000 used books affordable prices
10115 81 Avenue alhambrabooks@yahoo.ca
many books listed on ABEbooks.com
Alhambra Books has copies of
When Canada Had Proportional Representation
STV in Western Canda 1917-1971
or order through ABEbooks.com
==================================
Comments