Yes i agree...i also believe the no voters just arent interested in taking the time to research the new systems..
first past the post vs. proportional representation
- Thread starter licks2nite
- Start date
MMP has had MULTIPLE failures. In fact its success is limited to small countries with small populations. Neither geographically large countries nor densely populated countries benefit from MMP.
RUP is at best a dilution of extant problems of PR. It's the equivalent of political participation trophies
nightwhisper's comments are largely meaningless rhetoric.
"MMP has had MULTIPLE failures." This suggests that FPTP is something other than an ongoing train wreck. It suggest there is some other electoral system that has not in some case failed. He fails to give any example.
"In fact its success is limited to small countries with small populations. Neither geographically large countries nor densely populated countries benefit from MMP."
Neither size nor population density are relevant to the evaluation of an electoral system. What matters is how it serves voters. Jurisdictions you could look at are Germany, New Zealand, Scotland or Wales.
"RUP is at best a dilution of extant problems of PR." I agree that the RUP option is better than the DMP and MMP options but all three are much better than the outdated FPTP option.
Last edited:
I have had several posts in this thread about MMP sucking. Of those you listed on New Zealand is a triumphant case. The German parliament is a massive socialist wreck of discontent between the heterogeneous cultures of Prussia and Bavaria.
I didn't say FPTP didn't suck, but that it was more efficient.
And totalitarian governments are even more eficient.
Is that the standard by which you measure democracy?
Democracy originated in rule of by landed and estated elite.
People without possessions or estate were not traditionally granted suffrage.
Benevolent dictatorship like Taiwan, Jordan, Singapore were extremely capable economically and politically. Taiwan and Singapore has seen a decline in development speed due to democratisation.
People without possessions or estate were not traditionally granted suffrage.
Benevolent dictatorship like Taiwan, Jordan, Singapore were extremely capable economically and politically. Taiwan and Singapore has seen a decline in development speed due to democratisation.
Last edited:
Well it's an academic discussion now except for the few who might vote in person at the last minute. Still I've had a couple other thoughts about it that might be of interest to those invested in the discussion though:
The idea that PR encourages courting the fringe misses that the mainstream parties do just that already under FPTP. They rely on their core voters being reliable and not switching allegiance and so focus their effort almost entirely on swing votes. This includes engaging fringe and radical issues just to pick up a few extra percent. This tends to radicalise and polarise the politics. I'd rather see a fringe group get 5% of the seats than a mainstream party adopt parts of a fringe ideology in order to secure a false majority.
Secondly, I know this is a US thing moreso, but PR would almost completely nullify the dispicable practice of gerrymandering. Trying to turn a 49% riding into a 51% riding by playing with boundaries wouldn't get you the whole seat. It would just get you 2% more representation courtesy of one riding and 2% less from another. (Simplifying the math, but you get the idea I hope.)
The idea that PR encourages courting the fringe misses that the mainstream parties do just that already under FPTP. They rely on their core voters being reliable and not switching allegiance and so focus their effort almost entirely on swing votes. This includes engaging fringe and radical issues just to pick up a few extra percent. This tends to radicalise and polarise the politics. I'd rather see a fringe group get 5% of the seats than a mainstream party adopt parts of a fringe ideology in order to secure a false majority.
Secondly, I know this is a US thing moreso, but PR would almost completely nullify the dispicable practice of gerrymandering. Trying to turn a 49% riding into a 51% riding by playing with boundaries wouldn't get you the whole seat. It would just get you 2% more representation courtesy of one riding and 2% less from another. (Simplifying the math, but you get the idea I hope.)
Great point about considering efficiency. With FPTP you save time in the poll booth because you can only put a single mark on the ballot.
Too bad about all the inefficiencies outside the poll booth with FPTP. Watch the polls to see if your favourite has a chance or you need to vote strategically. The Conservatives get 100% of the power with 40% of the vote and policies that pander to the bigots on the right. Deal with policy lurch and half a dozen new laws that violate the Charter with ensuing court cases. Next, the Liberals win with 40% and reverse many of the laws that weren't outright Charter violations.
The really simple (useless) FPTP ballot comes at a high cost.
Except
a) a minority government will still need parliamentary support from other parties
b) you basically take the fptp system, dilute it with more parties and give them a disproportionate amount of power compared to the population they represent
I don't know why you blindly believe in deposing FPTP and insist on instituting PR, both of which suck (I think FPTP suck less). We have shit governance by shit governors. We are voting in politicians who rely on parliamentary skills rather than expert knowledge. This is hardly worth fighting over.
a) a minority government will still need parliamentary support from other parties
b) you basically take the fptp system, dilute it with more parties and give them a disproportionate amount of power compared to the population they represent
I don't know why you blindly believe in deposing FPTP and insist on instituting PR, both of which suck (I think FPTP suck less). We have shit governance by shit governors. We are voting in politicians who rely on parliamentary skills rather than expert knowledge. This is hardly worth fighting over.
If you're responding to treveller, I believe the "40% of the vote gets 100% of the power" refers to false majorities, not minority governments.
This is the argument that truly perplexes me. It's not disproportionate, it is proportional by definition. It's in the name. It amazes me how FPTP's disproportional representation is so deeply ingrained in some people that they see proportional as "unfair".
Might I also add that treveller has an excellent point that PR would eliminate the need to hold your nose and "vote strategically" for a party more likely to defeat the one you dislike than to vote for the party you actually like.
Federally, even the PCs and Reform recognised the disadvantages of FPTP splitting the vote and that's why they merged. And Federally that's why they'd be opposed to PR because it removes that disproportionate advantage they get in the merger from there being fewer choices at their end of the spectrum. They were also hypocritically opposed to a Liberal-NDP coalition for the same reason.
"Simplicity" is often given as a reason in favour of FPTP, and "complexity" against PR, but when people make that argument, I think they must have a really low opinion of voters' intelligence.
First Past The Post was a system from the colonial era, and I mean real 18th century swords-and-flintlocks stuff. There were just two parties "Tories" and "Whigs", and all their candidates were lords or guildsmen. People were still around who has witnessed witch-burnings in their youth. That's how out of date FPTP is.
More to the point: The "all you have to do is put an X by your candidate" simplicity of FPTP is from an era where most voters couldn't even read or write; to sign their name, they probably marked an "X" too. Are we so illiterate today? No. Uneducated? No. Have no access to news and opinions except that which a horse and rider messenger can bring to your town? No.
FPTP has been obsolete ever since there were more than two parties in Canada's elections: FYI that's been the case for a century now.
What level of "complexity" are we really talking about with Proportional Representation then? Not much - this is a scare tactic, and any realistic look at it makes it clear you're not going to have some sort of existential crisis while in the voting booth.
The ballot is supposedly" hard to figure out? If you can order from a restaurant menu, even a drive-thru, to figure out what you want, without screwing it up, you can vote on any PR ballot. Seriously, how hard is it to mark down one choice over here, and another over there? Or prioritize candidates or parties by writing down "1, 2, 3, 4..." beside someone's name?
The counting process is a mystery? No. It's all explainable, public information by law; subject to facts not interpretations - who wins is not somehow a matter of opinion. In fact, the winner is more able to say they really won, because a real majority always still wins, unlike today where a "winner" might have nowhere near a majority of votes.
I could also go back to the restaurant analogy again. I'm no chef, so when I order a steak dinner with garlic fries and honey-glazed carrots, do I really know how it's made? No. I can find out how it was done if I want to, someone can explain the recipe, like how the chef trimmed and spiced the steak, clarified the butter and whatever else - but I don't need intense levels of detail in order to eat my meal. All I care is that I got the meal I asked for. asked for steak, so don't "FPTP" me and tell me I can only ask for steak, but end up with either Thai chicken wings or bland old hamburger, because I had to really choose the one I didn't want.
Really the only sulky sour grapes there will be from the lazy media who will have to throw out their "horse race" style of coverage, with the expectation they can "declare" a victor before the ballots are even counted. The media hates complexity - they love these binary choices,
and you can see it in their campaign coverage and debates where they try to actively avoid talking about the 3rd or 4th forces in any race. They want it to be two, only two, because that means it's just about leaders' personalities, and they don't have to explain what party policies actually are (much less what they mean). "Turn left or turn right, nothing else is even possible".
Is that lack of choice even acceptable to voters anymore? No. Like I said, not for a century now - because the age of "two choices, one X" is over.
Other nations have managed PR voting, without the voters being stumped or the ballot-counters screwing it up, so what are we if we say we can't handle it - idiots?
the average voter voted in Trump and Hitler.
so yes. the average voter is an idiot who shouldnt vote.
Maybe if they'd been using PR that never would've happened.
Edit to add: seriously, thinking about it... if Trump, Hillary, Bernie and Jeb had been on an STV ballot, I'm confident Bernie would've won.
A minority government will need support from other parties, but this can lead to consensus and cooperation rather than conflict and cynicism.
That was in the context of FPTP.
in the context of PR, tell it to the 60 minority governments of Italy since WWII.
Nightwhisperer, you are conveniently (or ignorantly) overlooking that the government in Italy didn't really change governance every election. The Christian Democracy party held power for all but five years between 1946 and 1991. So actually the government was quite stable throughout that period. This is the often overlooked fact that FPTP supporters ignore when citing Italy's electoral history.
Another little known fact - no FPTP democracy ever permanently reverted back to FPTP after moving to a PR system. No PR democracy has ever switched to FPTP.
Another little known fact - no FPTP democracy ever permanently reverted back to FPTP after moving to a PR system. No PR democracy has ever switched to FPTP.
And you're above average then, because you still get to vote? Is that your point ? I guess some people have a very high opinion of themselves.
Personally, I think the fact that the shittiest governments come out of the lowest voter turnouts is evidence of the opposite. The less people vote, the stupider the outcome. Conversely, if you as a party/government want to do something really stupid, you have to suppress most people from voting, because the ordinary people are the ones who won't buy your bullshit and have the power to stop it.
On the other hand, being low-information voters has never stopped fanatics from voting (or thinking) exactly as their leaders tell them. Such people are usually low information (by choice), on the grounds they don't need any information but what the Leader tells them.
Example: If Andrew Scheer came out in favour if building a bridge into an erupting volcano, there are some of his supporters who would not only fund it, but drive right into the lava denying all evidence that it's a bad idea. "Self-cremation in molten rock is the key to economic prosperity!"
I think you'll find every major party has people like this.
In fact, Canada has had more elections post WW2 than Italy had. The Italy example is a lie, or at least a half-truth. Their "minority" governments are never the sort where a single-party parliamentary minority tries to govern. (Harper did so in Canada, because he would not share power.)
A more accurate example is Germany's system -
That's what this issue's really about: the desire of some parties to hold power ALONE, even when a majority does not support them and they do not have the popular support to justify it.
Under PR: You want to govern? You better have a majority of voters backing you. That can be one party, two, or more, but a majority of voters must be behind the formation of any government.
It is a grotesque distortion where a party forms government knowing most people do not support (or even tolerate) them being in charge.
Look at the election where the BC Liberals got more votes than the NDP, but the NDP (under Glen Clark) won power anyway. Absurd result, but typical FPTP stuff.
Besides, nobody's talking about making the BC PR system like Italy's; or Albania's; or Israel's. Those are all red herrings, when the closest thing to BC's options are found in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, and maybe Ireland.
No point in sounding the alarm about systems which aren't even being considered. But I guess the FPTP supporters are not above dodging the real issues, and refusing to debate the actual facts at hand.
Their whole campaign is based on fear, lies, partisanship, and deliberately creating confusion.
