Electoral Reform

[Mongo62]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

How would one calculate "15% of the actual decision-making power"?

It's been at least a decade since I read the paper, but I vaguely recall that it defined "decision-making power" as the percentage of possible outcomes of a measure being voted upon by the legislative body, where a given party's votes made the difference in whether that measure passed or failed. So if they vote for the measure, it passes, and if they vote against the measure, it fails. Under the usual system, if a party has 50% plus one votes, their decision-making power is 100% and all other parties combined have a decision-making power of 0%. The paper had a whole lot of mathematics demonstrating how, by re-weighting the individual votes by party (so they are not all equal to each other in weight, but instead with some party's votes being weighted at say .87 votes each and another party's votes being weighted at say 2.05 votes each), the functional result is that each party's decision-making power is proportional to the number of seats they occupy. It was definitely non-intuitive, but the paper showed how in practice it would work.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Mongo62

It's been at least a decade since I read the paper, but I vaguely recall that it defined "decision-making power" as the percentage of possible outcomes of a measure being voted upon by the legislative body, where a given party's votes made the difference in whether that measure passed or failed. So if they vote for the measure, it passes, and if they vote against the measure, it fails. Under the usual system, if a party has 50% plus one votes, their decision-making power is 100% and all other parties combined have a decision-making power of 0%. The paper had a whole lot of mathematics demonstrating how, by re-weighting the individual votes by party (so they are not all equal to each other in weight, but instead with some party's votes being weighted at say .87 votes each and another party's votes being weighted at say 2.05 votes each), the functional result is that each party's decision-making power is proportional to the number of seats they occupy. It was definitely non-intuitive, but the paper showed how in practice it would work.

Non-intuitive to say the least. More like a recipe for making all sides unhappy by way of endless political compromise.

[Mongo62]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Non-intuitive to say the least. More like a recipe for making all sides unhappy by way of endless political compromise.

Well, the majority party (assuming a majority government) would be unhappy because they would no longer have 100% of the decision-making power. The other parties would be a lot happier because their votes would actually count, in proportion to their number of seats. Right now they might as well stay home, for all the good their votes have in practice.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Mongo62

Well, the majority party (assuming a majority government) would be unhappy because they would no longer have 100% of the decision-making power. The other parties would be a lot happier because their votes would actually count, in proportion to their number of seats. Right now they might as well stay home, for all the good their votes have in practice.

That is true if you limit your consideration to direct legislative outcomes, but surely the electorate pays attention to "no" votes as part of its evaluation of our political parties. That would seem some consolation.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So if voters can adapt to a specific electoral system to get the results they want (like strategic voting under the current FPTP system to get rid of Harper), then why is there such an all fired need to change the system?

Remember the strengths of FPTP
- tendency to produce stable majorities
- local representation
- easy to understand

That's the point. They can't. There are many cases in which strategic voting backfires on people because it's blind. They don't always know how other people will vote, and assume their candidate can't win and vote for another in large enough numbers that if they had all voted for the candidate they wanted, they'd have won.

Yes voters will alter their voting patterns, but it's impossible to "adapt". They'll try to get as close to their desired results as possible under whatever system they're working with, but only some systems allow them to get what they actually want. Strategic voting is a perfect example as it shows people feeling like they aren't able to vote for what they really want.

Also, producing stable majorities is NOT a strength imo. Not when it's giving all the power to a minority of voters. Sure the government may be able to act more decisively and get things done, but that's only a good thing if it's getting things done that the majority support.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

One thing that doesn't change though is that the winner-takes-all systems (FPTP and ranked ballot) always favor larger parties and/or regional parties with a broad base in their region (BQ from the early 1990s to 2011 and likely Reform back when they were only in the West if my memory's correct) while the proportional systems always favor the smaller, more fringe parties (Green, Communist, Libertarian, etc.)

That's always going to be true.

The point I was making is that the parties that hold these positions are not necessarily going to remain the same. Whether or not a party continues to fill a particular role depends on the electorate. It's possible that a particular party may hold a given position until time immemorial, or things may drastically change.

[Mongo62]

Originally Posted by lio45

One thing that doesn't change though is that the winner-takes-all systems (FPTP and ranked ballot) always favor larger parties and/or regional parties with a broad base in their region (BQ from the early 1990s to 2011 and likely Reform back when they were only in the West if my memory's correct) while the proportional systems always favor the smaller, more fringe parties (Green, Communist, Libertarian, etc.)

I would say that PR systems don't favor or disfavor any parties. They all get the number of seats proportional to their votes. Winner-take-all systems, on the other hand, do favor large parties over small parties -- which is why I dislike them, they effectively suppress the political voices of people who prefer less popular parties.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mongo62

I would say that PR systems don't favor or disfavor any parties. They all get the number of seats proportional to their votes. Winner-take-all systems, on the other hand, do favor large parties over small parties -- which is why I dislike them, they effectively suppress the political voices of people who prefer less popular parties.

I suspect what he means is, a change to a PR system would be advantageous to a smaller party and disadvantageous to a larger party. Even if the statement couldn't be made of the system, the statement could be made of the change, couldn't it?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Mongo62

I would say that PR systems don't favor or disfavor any parties. They all get the number of seats proportional to their votes. Winner-take-all systems, on the other hand, do favor large parties over small parties -- which is why I dislike them, they effectively suppress the political voices of people who prefer less popular parties.

Well, obviously. When I meant "favors smaller parties", it was meant to be taken as "out of all possible systems, pure PR is what's best for fringe parties". In other words, when considering the entirety of possible electoral systems, pure PR is, compared to the average system, going to favor smaller parties and disfavor larger ones.

Pure PR, by definition, does not favor or disfavor anyone. That's one of its strengths, alongside the fact that no votes are ever wasted, that it doesn't matter in which location you cast your vote, that all votes have the exact same weight, and that there's no need for strategic voting or "holding your nose" while voting.

[kiwi]

Any update on electoral reform?

They still have time, but if the Liberals break this promise it will look bad on them.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by kiwi

Any update on electoral reform?

They still have time, but if the Liberals break this promise it will look bad on them.

I heard Justin speaking in French today about how they're going to start the process soon. He reaffirmed the basic commitment. This will certainly be riskier for them than a lot of what they've done so far.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I suspect what he means is, a change to a PR system would be advantageous to a smaller party and disadvantageous to a larger party. Even if the statement couldn't be made of the system, the statement could be made of the change, couldn't it?

It is likely to encourage the formation of small parties and much greater factionalization of political life. Compromises will be made between parties after elections rather than within parties prior to elections, giving the electorate less certainty about what they're actually voting for.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I heard Justin speaking in French today about how they're going to start the process soon. He reaffirmed the basic commitment. This will certainly be riskier for them than a lot of what they've done so far.

I could still be persuaded to consider some form of ranked balloting, but I feel like interest in electoral reform has waned since the election. I imagine it won't take much to stir up interest again, but I suspect that there's going to be more heat than light in the political and public discussions.

[JHikka]

They still need to form a committee which still needs to file a report which then needs to be approved by parliament and then needs to be implemented by Elections Canada before Fall 2019. I think they're out of time for changing the electoral system for 2019. Meeting all of these deadlines would make for a major rush job and likely a poor outcome.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by JHikka

They still need to form a committee which still needs to file a report which then needs to be approved by parliament and then needs to be implemented by Elections Canada before Fall 2019. I think they're out of time for changing the electoral system for 2019. Meeting all of these deadlines would make for a major rush job and likely a poor outcome.

Trudeau acknowledged the tight time frame in the news conference I saw today and then restated his promise that the new system will be in place for the next election. He was talking about public consultations as well, so he's nothing if not ambitious.

[kiwi]

Liberals announced a committee for electoral reform. Some people are saying the Liberals announced the committee late so that they actually won't have time to implement the new system and they will have an excuse to keep the old system in place. What's your guys thought on this?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kiwi

Liberals announced a committee for electoral reform. Some people are saying the Liberals announced the committee late so that they actually won't have time to implement the new system and they will have an excuse to keep the old system in place. What's your guys thought on this?

They kept insisting that 2015 was the last election using FPTP. Putting cart before horse since their timelines are still much too tight for implementation for 2019.

[eemy]

Within 6 months of being elected doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Mongo62]

Originally Posted by kiwi

Liberals announced a committee for electoral reform. Some people are saying the Liberals announced the committee late so that they actually won't have time to implement the new system and they will have an excuse to keep the old system in place. What's your guys thought on this?

"Some people" will always take the worst possible interpretation of anything the Liberals do, because of preexisting hostility towards them.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kiwi

Liberals announced a committee for electoral reform. Some people are saying the Liberals announced the committee late so that they actually won't have time to implement the new system and they will have an excuse to keep the old system in place. What's your guys thought on this?

That they've got loads of time to get the job done in time for the next election?

And it's no secret that it's the Conservative Party that doesn't want to change the current system. The Liberals lean toward a ranked ballot.