… with some God-fearing Good Friday news nuggets to tide you over until the pubs re-open.
• Senate polls have consistently proved themselves to be pointless endeavours, but let the record note that Roy Morgan has produced one from their last three months of surveys. This might be of at least some use if Morgan gave South Australian respondents a chance to indicate support for Nick Xenophon, but they presumably don’t because he is not up for re-election next time (unless there’s a double dissolution of course). Nonetheless, South Australia shows an “others” result of 19.5 per cent compared with 8 per cent nationally.
• The Tasmanian Liberals have preselected three candidates for the Hobart electorate of Denison for next year’s state election, after earlier delaying the process due to concerns about a “lack of high-profile talent”. The nominees are 70-year-old incumbent Michael Hodgman; lawyer Elise Archer, who polled a solid 3.2 per cent at the 2006 election; and Matt Stevenson, state president of the Young Liberals. No sign of contentious Hobart alderman Marti Zucco, but two positions remain to be filled.
• Yesterday’s Crikey Daily Mail had a piece by Malcolm Mackerras noting the looming by-election in New Zealand for Helen Clark’s seat of Mount Albert, and the absurdity of such a thing in a supposedly proportional representation system. If it loses, Labour will be deprived of one of the seats entitled to it by its national vote share at last November’s election. New Zealand’s mixed-member proportional system is modelled on Germany’s, but departs from it in that vacated constituency seats in Germany are filled by unelected candidates from the party’s national lists – which New Zealand was obviously loath to do as it would randomly match members to electorates with which they had no connection.
• Mackerras also notes that the May 12 election in the Canadian province of British Columbia will be held in conjunction with a second referendum seeking to replace its first-past-the-post single-member constituency system with “BC-STV” (British Columbia-Single Transferable Vote). I take this to be identical in every respect to Hare-Clark as it operates in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (complete with Robson rotation and optional preferential voting), except the number of members per region will range from two to seven. A referendum was also held at the previous election in 2005, but it received 57.7 per cent support while requiring 60 per cent to be binding. Get funky with the official website of British Columbians for BC-STV.
UPDATE (11/4/09): The West Australian carries a second Westpoll survey of 400 respondents on the May 16 daylight saving referendum, showing 47 per cent supporting and 51 per cent opposed compared with 42 per cent and 57 per cent at the poll last month. The West’s report says this means “community support for daylight saving has climbed steadily over the last month”, but I don’t need to tell you all what a load of bollocks that is. Taken together, the surveys suggest the proposal is most likely headed for defeat by the same narrow-ish margins as in 1975, 1984 and 1992.
[PR simply allows minority groups to wield power in disproportion to their real support]
What disingenuous rubbish. It enables minorities to be given a share of power in proportion to their support on the community.
[PR simply allows minority groups to wield power in disproportion to their real support]
It does no such thing. If two ‘majority groups’ chose to do so they could form a majority or reach an agreement re confidence and supply issues to squeeze out the ‘minority groups’.
It gives ‘minority groups’ no more power than that given to them by the people. Other systems of voting might act instead to disempower all those who choose to not vote for one of two ‘majority group’ parties.
J-D
[If you are arguing to move away from the ‘just two choices’ model, then you are arguing in favour of reducing the voters’ control over who forms the government.]
Re-read Mill extract above for your answer. PR by definition increases voters’ control over the proportion of members who represent their own group’s views in parliament. The bigger the group the bigger the representation. Sounds fair to me.
Bule @150
There’s nothing necessarily better about being pure. The hypothesis is pure only in the mathematical sense. Only two options is the simplest possible choice. Life is nearly always more complicated than simple pure hypotheses. I’m not advocating one way or the other, I’m just pointing out what’s involved in the decision.
[It enables minorities to be given a share of power in proportion to their support on the community.]
So does learning how to pick good candidates,developing polices acceptable to the the majority of an electorate and focusing resources where the best chance of winning happens to be.
jaundiced view @153
Yes, PR gives voters more control over the representation of their group in parliament. But insofar as it tends to move the system away from the simplest model of two choices only (which it doesn’t have to, as it doesn’t in Malta, but there is a tendency that way), it reduces voters’ control over who forms the government.
Ruawake @ 131
[But that would require that Tasmania, ACT and NT have a the “correct” number of members?]
I envisage it would work not as proportional on a population basis state by state, but on national support for the various groups/parties.
#154
Thanks for that clarification. It did seem that you were suggesting that voter choice diminishes with deviation from a hypothetically pure model, which, to democratically minded people might imply that such a model is better.
As it is, I’m not convinced that your conclusions are necessarily sound. If the stability of only two alternatives results in increased capacity for political parties to engage in rent-seeking or imposing other forms of obligation on elected representatives, acting as delegates, then this may have more significant effects on the strength of voter choice than any effects of models deviating from such a ‘pure’ model.
[So does learning how to pick good candidates,developing polices acceptable to the the majority of an electorate and focusing resources where the best chance of winning happens to be.]
If a party (or a parties policies) has/have the support of a majority of the electorate they will receive the majority of the seats under a PR system. Currently, a majority of people do not support (necessarily) the policies of the governing party.
J-D
[it tends to move the system away from the simplest model of two choices only]
As Mill said, systems like ours result in a simple majority of 50.1% having all the power:
[This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, the complete disenfranchisement of minorities.]
How does the disenfranchisement of minorities give them any control over the government formed?
I didn’t say it diminishes voter choice, I said that it diminishes voters’ control over who forms the government.
Again, I didn’t say anything about the strength of voter choice, and I’m not sure what you mean by that phrase.
The reduction in voters’ control over who forms the government is, as I said, empirically observable. Whether one chooses to regard that as a good thing or a bad thing, and how much weight one attaches to it in comparison with other effects, is another matter. Some people might think that a parliament with a large number of different groups proportionally represented, and without the fixed alliances between them that one finds in countries like Italy and India, is a good thing, and that the reduction in voters’ control over who forms the government doesn’t matter or is a price worth paying. All I’m saying is that you will get the reduction in voters’ control over who forms the government.
JV, the old tyranny of the majority theory, no doubt. Funny your concerns haven’t run to the other side of the coin with an anarchistic cry of vote for nobody because if you do a politician wins.
Consider the example of Germany. Germany is an intermediate case. It doesn’t deviate from the simple ‘just-two-choices’ model as much as the Netherlands or Belgium, but it deviates more than the UK or Australia, and the present government is one such deviation. The fact that such a deviation is more of an exception to the usual pattern in Germany makes its significance more distinct. Nobody voted in favour of government by a coalition of the Christian Democrats and the Social-democrats. Any voters who want that kind of government have no way of voting in favour of it. And voters who want not to have that kind of government have no way of voting against it.
Would a status quo supporter please care to explain how the last term of Howard with majorities in the Reps and Senate was a desirable example of stable democracy?
So you can point out one country in Europe who’s government collapsed as a result of the financial crisis, and a couple of others Glen doesn’t like and that means the system used by almost 30 countries in Europe is inherently unstable.
Yes, I realised afterwards I’d used ‘choice’ instead of ‘control’.
It appears to me that the ‘control’ you’re talking about may be flawed. The clarity of the choice made by voters may be more stark when they are only presented with two options, but this says nothing about their ‘control’ over who forms government because the model, as far as I can see, says nothing about the process by which the two options are put before the electorate.
That is, who are the candidates, how are they nominated, and by whom?
It seems to me that you’ve invested a lot of thought in the logic and, perhaps, mathematics involved in this hypothesis, and I won’t pretend that I have. I know you make all the right kind of qualifications about the realities of complex society and choices related to behaviour, but exactly how ‘pure’ is this hypothesis? Does it start simply with two alternative government choices and no consideration of how these choices were determined?
steve –
[Funny your concerns haven’t run to the other side of the coin with an anarchistic cry of vote for nobody because if you do a politician wins.]
No, I want an improvement on what ours has become. I just can’t see anyone outside the major party umbrellas thinking that the representation we get currently is the best possible.
That’s the process isn’t it to fix bad systems generally?: 1. recognise there is a problem; 2. define that problem; 3. look at possible solutions from around the world; 4. choose the best alternative; 5. implement change.
jaundiced view, if people opposed to the government have seats in parliament, they can’t be said to be completely disenfranchised. Obviously it makes no sense to have people opposed to the government included in the government.
Instead of arguing this purely in the abstract, it is essential to look at the evidence of experience. We know what the range of experience has been in a range of different countries and it makes no sense to me to ignore this.
PR encourages divisions in society, it encourages single interest groups to form and it destroys any sense of consensus within society.
If you want to look at ‘how good’ PR is then look up any history book on the Weimar Republic.
[If you want to look at ‘how good’ PR is then look up any history book on the Weimar Republic.]
This is as stupid as saying “If you want to look at how good democracy is then look up any history book on the Weimar Republic.”
J-D @ 163
But the coalitions forming government in parliament come from the representatives of all groups with reps. If a member or members of the coalition representing a group act in a way contrary to what the voters generally want, the consequences will be felt next election and beyond. But the main thing is everyone is represented in parliament, and most likely two or more in the coalition. It means that issues are debated within and without the coalition government and in parliament on their merits and then determined by the parliament, which remains proportionally representative of the voters. This doesn’t constitute a lack of control.
Where’s the problem again?
Again, the problem is that some view the sole reason for parliaments existence is to create a government .
J-D @ 168
[We know what the range of experience has been in a range of different countries and it makes no sense to me to ignore this.]
Makes no sense to me to do that either, and I don’t think I have. That’s one of the main reasons I support it.
It’s Time. The balance with Howard occurs by his defeat not during the term of his rule. Given that majorities in both Houses lead to his downfall, it has played a part in returning the system to stability but there is still a overhang from the terms in the senate being longer than the terms for the HoR members.
It isn’t just the Greens. Look at New Zealand, there have been the rise of a number of parties of different stripes, including the ACT party, who are now in government.
And the majority of stable western democracies use proportional systems. And what’s so bad about Italy? Sure, they have a lot of governments. But they have been peaceful and relatively prosperous for the last sixty years.
And when you consider the problems that Israel has, do you really think it’s caused by a PR system? Do you think the whole Arab-Israeli conflict might have something to do with it?
Polls show a large amount of disillusionment with political parties and our system of government. Most people don’t say “the problem with our system of government is the single-member electorate system”, but that’s largely because people aren’t aware of the alternatives and aren’t engaged enough to have an educated option.
But the truth remains that people are largely unhappy with the way that government operates, and would like to see parties have a little bit less stability in government and a bit more accountability. Ask most people what they think of our current system where a few “marginal seats” get all the attention while the rest are ignored, and the need for change becomes obvious. I don’t advocate for a single system, but it is clearly broken and we need some national debate about the best way forward. It might be a constitutional convention, or a citizens’ assembly, or a royal commission. After people have been educated about the options, we could then follow it up with a referendum.
But why are the defenders of the status quo so afraid of the debate? You always like to beat it down with ridiculous examples. Israel! Hitler’s Germany! As if those countries didn’t have bigger problems then their electoral systems.
Regarding British Columbia, I have posted a Google Earth map on my website that includes both the new redistributed FPP boundaries to be used for the 2009 election and the proposed STV boundaries that will be used in 2013 if the referendum is successful. You can find it at http://www.tallyroom.com.au/maps/
I suppose a Mount Albert by-election does make sense in order to do justice to the “Member” part of Mixed Member Proportional.
But to do justice to the “proportional” part, the party that wins (if its not Labour) ought to lose a list seat, and Labour ought to gain a list seat.
So you end up with zero sum game which renders the by-election completely pointless.
No they don’t. Not anywhere. There are always some groups that are in the government coalition and some which are against it. Now look at the example of any country you like and tell me what determines which groups will be in government and which will be in opposition.
There is a big difference between a majority government of a single party and a coalition of a number of parties. There is always the possibility that one of them will turn on the others, and usually it still opens up the possibility for a less monolothic legislative process.
Perhaps. But I didn’t say that.
Possibly. That doesn’t change the truth of what I’ve been saying.
J-D
[There are always some groups that are in the government coalition and some which are against it.]
Yes, I wasn’t denying that truth – I was simply pointing out that PR gets minorities into parliament where they are 1. In the mix with potential to be part of the executive, and 2. in a position to help vote down anything the executive comes up with that stinks. (instead of the current rubber stamp).
Ben R @ 175
Excellent exposition
And for those interested in genuine discussion on the topic rather than just defending the status quo from their respective big party citadels, a US site with some good background on PR and lots of links (I found the JS Mill link there) is Fairvote:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=718
Call me old-fashioned, but I like the single-member constituency system as it operates in the lower houses of Australian parliaments, with the exception of Tasmania. There is very easy access to the political process for would-be MP’s, but to win they have to pass muster with a well-defined group of electors. As a voter – and not as a wannabe politician – this suits me. MP’s have to get to know their constituents and treat them with elementary respect or their legislative roles will not last long. This is great. It makes it possible to get rid of politicians who have erred or otherwise failed their electors. This matters to me much more than a purist idea of making sure that every shade of opinion is represented in parliament. Why should every minor viewpoint have standing in the legislative process? Legislatures – especially the Upper Houses, which tend to be drawn from lists and be comprised of multi-member constituencies – are already prone to inertia, populism and ratbag deal-broking. Privileging every minority interest group and single-issue outfit – which is what PR tends to to – will only make legislatures less democratic and less effective.
[in a position to help vote down anything the executive comes up with that stinks. (instead of the current rubber stamp).]
It never turned out that way when Labor had the majority in the council opposition before the last Brisbane City Council election. All that happened was the Liberals under Gridlock Campbell took the credit for anything they liked and the Labor councilors took the rap for anything the Liberals didn’t want to take responsibility for. Come the election it was the Labor Party that lost wards.The theory being expoused here just does not accord with observed practice.
That may well be so, at least sometimes, but it still doesn’t change the truth of what I’ve been saying.
Briefly@183
[Privileging every minority interest group and single-issue outfit – which is what PR tends to to – will only make legislatures less democratic and less effective]
So you think that giving each party representation in parliament according to their proportion of the vote is ‘privileging ‘ them. Really? That’s a big call. So you would rather:
[… the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, the complete disenfranchisement of minorities.]
In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately but proportionately.
in 186 the last sentence is also from Mill and should be with the quote above it.
MPs having to be good members is only a reality in marginal seats and seats held by independents. Safe seats have sufficient numbers of people who almost always vote with the one party because they think that party is best for them so that those who try voting out a bad member do not change whether or not that person is elected. In nations with voluntary voting and single member seats safe seats get significantly lower turnout. Parties also spend less resources on safe seats.
The genius with Robson Rotation is that those who want to vote only for a party can just donkey vote down their parties selection of candidates and this does not prevent those who wish to make a choice from within the parties selection of candidates from having an effective choice.
“Tom the first and best
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
MPs having to be good members is only a reality in marginal seats and seats held by independents. Safe seats have sufficient numb…….”
This is even more of a problem with PR lists…..
Who’s talking about lists? We’re talking Hare-Clark, multi-member constituencies with Robson Rotation.
jaundiced view
“Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
Briefly@183
Privileging every minority interest group and single-issue outfit – which is what PR tends to to – will only make legislatures less democratic and less effective
So you think that giving each party representation in parliament according to their proportion of the vote is ‘privileging ‘ them. Really? That’s a big call…. ”
Big or not, giving minority voices swing-power in the legislative process is bad for policy and bad for the legislatures themselves….think of Senators Harradine and Xenophon….
[briefly
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 at 10:48 pm
This is even more of a problem with PR lists…..]
Not when we are in a situation where ‘local representation’ has been traduced to the 2 party system to the extent that it is meaningless. Unless we want to perpetuate an historical anachronism, like, say, marriage, we’ll move to PR.
I suppose that’s why most countries use some form of PR, and the new eastern european democracies all adopted it.
The question is only really how we make it best for Aussie circumstances, with our large area and relatively small population – a bit like the broadband fibre problem.
[Big or not, giving minority voices swing-power in the legislative process is bad for policy and bad for the legislatures themselves]
Arr, how dare the 20% of people who don’t vote for Labor or Liberal think that they’re entitled to some kind of representation!
Don’t they know it’s bad for democracy!
Here is that Paul Murray Column on the NBN from the other day which compares Rudd to Whitlam.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=9&ContentID=135399
“Oz
Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Arr, how dare the 20% of people who don’t vote for Labor or Liberal think that they’re entitled to some kind of representation!
Don’t they know it’s bad for democracy!..”
Democracy is not about rule with the consent of minorities. It is about rule by the majority. Minor opinion is important, but should not be able to frustrate the will of the majority. It is that simple.
[Democracy is not about rule with the consent of minorities. It is about rule by the majority. Minor opinion is important, but should not be able to frustrate the will of the majority. It is that simple.]
Theoretically yes
In the “real” world sometimes the majority can be less tham half of the “actual” electorate
Eg USA
Sorry briefly, I didn’t see your 191 before posting.
[think of Senators Harradine and Xenophon….]
I try not to – particularly the former, but they wouldn’t be elected under any PR system as I see them. What party or registered group do they represent? PR would shake out the shonks like Fielding, fronting sects. You would just have sizeable minority groups of the left and right. There could be no ambush by hiding behind a name like ‘Family First’ if the thing were national. I doubt it happend much in Germany or the other European states enjoying PR. Perhaps Herr Dr Adam can assist on Germany?
j-v, local representation remains the best starting point in the political process. You might think it has been “traduced” but there would be even less role for local values, identities and personalities – and more room for celebrity, spin, money and crook deals – in a PR system.
The whole legislative-executive-judicial structure requires that people know who is responsible and that they can be made accountable when things go wrong. The closer that elected officials are to their constituents – the more they rely on local, personal legitimacy – the more likely it is that the system will be coherent, durable, flexible, self-sustaining and responsible. PR would undermine all this, in my opinion.
If in a legislative chamber with proportional representation a majority of members vote against a motion/bill/government then the representatives of the MAJORITY of formal voters* have voted against said motion/bill/government. All parties who vote against something are responsibility for its defeat.
[It is about rule by the majority.]
Who says? You might have that opinion but it’s hardly the only definition of democracy or even the most accepted one.