Inescapable? Our current system doesn’t have this problem, at least not to anywhere near the same extent. One only needs to look at Germany with its series of kingmakers, to see this. Another example is Italy, which has an infamously unstable government as coalitions are formed and reformed.
Further, this brings up another terrible disadvantage of PR: it prevents governments from making bold moves when they are necessary, as every Tom, Dick and Harry wants a say. See Israel, for instance: “Designing policy in Israel is like writing poetry while standing on a ball.”
Huh? No it isn’t backwards. PR favours smaller parties with narrow focus. Again, see Israel.
The current system isn’t broken. It produces stable governments that are able to make bold decisions. Those favouring PR need to make a case for it, not the other way around. So far, that hasn’t been done.
Like Communism, Proportional Representation is a great idea in theory. But in practice, you get minority interest parties (Freedom for Tooting!) suddenly in a position to [del]show everyone who’s boss now[/del] use their newfound position of power and influence to get their minority/unpopular/impractical demands implemented.
The thing is, US legislative rules allow for the adding on of completely and utterly unrelated issues (“Riders”) to the legislation being debated. Thus, a Bill for something like “increasing hospital funding” could find itself with a rider along the lines of “upgrading a road in nowheresville to an Autobahn”. In most other Westminster-based parlimentary democracys, windmills do not work that way- it’s one subject per Bill.
Voting reform was one of the major campaign points for the LibDems (Then again so was college fee ) and they got enough votes to become part of a colition so they definitly have a strong case for pushing for it.
I disagree completely. That this happens in practice, says more about the ‘main’ parties in those places. That a ‘mainstream’ conservative party would rather go into coallition with the local nazis rather than the local liberals or socialists tells you that they are nazis themselves. Don’t vote for them next time if you don’t like that.
And one can’t have it both ways. Don’t complain that PR gives minority views too much prominence and then extol FPTP for allowing minority governments the power to enact bold policies.
I’m hoping that the lack of debate on this particular point (the “killer disadvantage” that “a candidate can lose an election by simply being ranked higher by their supporters than another candidate”) is because no-one thinks this is actually true or important, or that it is any less an issue in FPTP? Hint: a ‘higher’ ranked candidate can’t lose to a ‘lower’ ranked one.
If it is perceived to be a problem then PR is the only complete solution.
If people just haven’t been bothered to think about it (I had to sleep on it myself before concluding it is a feature not a bug) then the referendum is going to be a bit unreliable.
It’s not usually the local Nazi-type party that the pollies are aligning with, though- it’s The Greens (or local equivalent thereof), who have an agenda that might not mesh particularly well with… well, pretty much everyone who’s not a greenie/lefty.
I don’t ever recall extolling FPTP for “allowing minority governments the power to enact bold policies”; I’m extolling it because it usually stops the Tooting Liberation Front from getting any real parliamentary political power.
I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that you don’t believe that this phenomenon occurs? In which case, you are wrong. Otherwise, are you saying that this is a good feature in a voting system? How can a voting system which causes completely non-intuitive and hard to predict results in a sixth of all elections be sensible? If you see it as a feature, rather than a bug, then please try to defend it as such. If you’re saying something else entirely, then please clarify.
I think it should be noted that this figure – a monotonicity failure in one sixth of elections – is based purely on mathematical simulation and has not (to my knowledge) been verified empirically. Such simulations are of necessity highly abstract and, to be literal, quite wrong; their predictions may provide a good indication of the truth but require further confirmation. One can, of course, point to specific examples of real-life failure.
(In Lepelly et al., 1996, cited by the Wikipedia article, more plausible assumptions about individual preferences lead to a significant reduction in “paradoxes”.)
One thing which does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread is the status of the party manifesto. The reason I think this is important is that any proportional system is likely to lead to coalition government. Where that is the outcome it seems to me that there is a problem: the compromises made may have advantages, but they do mean that one cannot be certain that the policy which attracts one to a particular party will survive the “horsetrading”. This has been brought home to me quite forcefully over tuition fees: but the same difficulty can arise on any manifesto pledge, surely.
If that is the case then it does not seem to me to be demonstrable that PR will better reflect voter wishes. It appears to do the opposite.
I am not suggesting that manifesto promises are always kept, but I think they are still important in the uk: if the party wishes to break them after election that is still something which attracts comment and criticism. This is a good thing, IMO. It means that you can actually know that what you are voting for is something you are likely to get. It is probably true that the parties include as few specifics as they can because they recognise they are held to greater account on manifesto committments: but they have to put something in there: and so one can have some idea of what will happen on those few issues
The UK is not used to coalition government and so far in practice it appears that there is no such certaintly in this situation. Each part can renege on such pledges in the interest of maintaining the government. To me that seems to shift the emphasis away from voter concerns and towards party/politician interests. Those are not absent in any system, of course: but they seem more important in this coalition.
It may be that in countries which have PR, and therefore routinely form coalitions, there is some mechansim to deal with this problem: perhaps the parties issue “core” policies which they will not compromise on, and the possible coalitions are limited in that way, for example: I do not know and I will be interested to hear from members who do.
For now it seems to me that the focus on outcomes is incomplete if the question of manifesto pledges is excluded from this debate. If we are to change the voting system how is this to be dealt with. What I do not want is any more move to voting on personality, instead of on policy: but if we cannot actually be sure * any* policy will survive, that seems to me to be one possible outcome: you end up voting for the “nice person”, as you perceive it.
Indeed. But aren’t those arguing for voting reform are also basing their argument on the same mathematical analyses. One widely cited advantage of AV (and other voting systems distinct from FPTP) is that it severely cuts down, or removes entirely, tactical voting, for instance.
Further, the Wikipedia article on the problem also cites at least one recent example, of a mayoral election in the US (and also discusses how hard it is to come up with an empirical study analysing this phenomenon, due to privacy concerns in e.g. Australian federal elections). Clearly, this isn’t a problem that only exists in the abstract; we’re just debating with how much regularity it occurs.
We had this debate in New Zealand 16 years ago when we moved from First Past The Post to Mixed Member Proportional (similar to Alternative Vote). I believe in strong government and the points made by Capn Ridley so I was opposed to the change.
MMP is a two vote system: 1 vote for your local member of Parliament, and the 2nd vote for the Party you prefer. Half of Parliament is composed of electorate members and the other half from Party list members. Thus you can vote for the local Green candidate, and the Conservative Party. As indeed I have done.
We’ve had 5 elections now under MMP and I have to concede proportional elections produce better results than I expected. Yes a small party can be a kingmaker. Yes, a small party can appear to wag the dog. But in practise the small parties in a coalition add vim and vigour to government, sometimes not supporting legislation, and offering a different perspective.
Nevertheless the small parties get ignored most of the time. They are scared of forcing an election and losing the only experience of power they have ever had. Plus they wax and wane wheres the big parties carry on.
I say go for it. Politics is much more interesting with small active parties and the large parties have to be sharp. We have had weird events where List members have resigned from their Party but kept their seat as an Independent. Elected MPs have also left their Party but kept their seat and crossed the House!
Personally I prefer Single Transferable Vote because it would amass a more democratic result even when the winner is largely a second choice. Sounds odd but it works. Our Health Boards (which run local public hospitals) are elected by STV.
Ah yes, election manifesto promises are a live issue. In practise the small party demands a couple of key concessions as the price of their support. For example they might want to put a carbon tax on fuel. The main party compromises by agreeing to a Select Committee inquiry (or something like that) but generally resists creating a law straight up.
The main party of course can drop a couple of election pledges in turn, saying it was the price of coalition.
We have a good example at the moment. The National Party (conservative) governs with the support of the Maori Party. They propose to change the law of ownership of the foreshore and seabed which is a volatile issue.
Under common law which stems from Britain, the foreshore and seabed are held by the Crown, and are thus freely open to all people. However Maori argue they have superior indigenous rights in certain estuaries and bays - which may be correct at law. If our current law is changed, Maori will be able to test those claims in Court.
That is a biggie but National never said they wouldn’t do this. It’s just that it’s an almost inconceivable act for a conservative government. Funny old world eh.
Hmm. That doesn’t seem to me enough to address the problem. It is what we are seeing here, certainly, but I had hoped there was something whcih dealt with the difficulty more explicitly.
All I can do is repeat the old truism - “politics is the art of the possible”. Compromise.
In New Zealand we have two big parties National and Labour. In the past 50 years only two minor parties ever gained a seat in Parliament - for a very short time.
If we still had FPP we’d still have only two parties and frankly, our political discourse would be much poorer. We now have Greens, Maori, NZ Future, and ACT as small parties and they add greatly to the colour of the political landscape.
Consider Italy: governments there collapse almost yearly as coalitions explode and yet the economy and living standards of the people are high. Same with Israel.
Proportional elections are not to be feared - and that comes from a person who was completely against the idea.
You misunderstand me: I was broadly in favour of it until our recent experience in this country. I am not yet wholly dissuaded. But as I have said, I do like to know what I am voting for. This appears to be a problem.
I fully acccept that with PR more voices will be heard and there will be wider political debate as minority issues are aired because there is a chance they will have a chance. I do not think they are wholly excluded in first past the post: though I think their adoption is slower and less certain in a way. But only in a way. With FPTP once a minority issue is adopted as a manifesto pledge it is expected that it will be implemented. I do not see any such surety in PR of any stripe. The art of the possible, certainly: but that is true in both systems I think. Compromise is present in two party systems because parties have “wings”. The manifesto is the sum of those compromises and so you know what parts of your own particular agenda you are going to get before you vote. It is not perfect and pledges are sometimes broken: but that party is responsible for any such breach.
In the current coalition this seem to be less true. The compromises are made after the election and so you do not know at all what you are voting for. That is my problem.
A wide ranging political debate is nice for those who like to discuss such stuff and take an interest in politics for its own sake. But in the end I want to vote knowing that at least the few manifesto promises will be kept: because otherwise I do not see how I can make a choice.
What I am asking is how is this dealt with in PR systems. It seems from what you say that at least in some the will to stick to the avowed policy makes coalition collapse, very often. And as you say it is not disastrous for living standards etc: at least it is not so far. But I was listening to the radio yesterday as it happens and what was being discussed was the mystery of widespread corruption in Italy: because such corruption is not normally seen in wealthy developed countries. I do not know if these facts are related and I make no such claim. But I wonder if the need for government coupled with PR and integrity as to what you have pledged might itself facilitate corruption: in the sense of buying “compromise” as a necessity.
I am sure there are ways of dealing with this but it is not a trivial concern for me
) and they got enough votes to become part of a colition so they definitly have a strong case for pushing for it.
