#first-past-the-post

[thoughtlessarse]

Italy's constitutional court rejects League's bid to change electoral law

Italy's Constitutional Court on Thursday (16 January) rejected a request by the hard-right League party to hold a referendum to introduce a first-past-the-post electoral system, triggering the ire of League chief Matteo Salvini and relief in government ranks.

The opposition League is by far Italy’s most popular party, polls show, and its support is heavily concentrated in northern regions.

A first-past-the-post system would have raised the chances of a League-led centre-right bloc winning a big majority at the next election, piling pressure on the struggling government of the 5-Star Movement and the Democratic Party (PD).

The referendum proposed to change the electoral law simply by abolishing the proportional representation (PR) part of the current mixed system, but the court called this an “excessively manipulative” attempt at introducing a new system.

“It is a disgrace, it is the old system that defends itself … We are sorry that the people are not allowed to decide: this is the return to pre-history of the worst Italian politics,” Salvini wrote on Twitter.

The coalition of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement and the centre-left PD is currently negotiating to introduce a purely proportional law which would limit the right-wing coalition’s chances of a clear election win.

continue reading

Typical. If you can’t win under the existing system change the system. First-past-the-post (fptp) disenfranchises people of their votes. Proportional representation (PR) reflects the number of votes won in the number of seats in the parliament. You only have to look at the UK to see how unfair fptp is. 

The Tories won the general election with 43% of the vote yet they control just under 58% of the parliamentary seats. If PR were used the Tories would control about 45% of the seats.

[thoughtlessarse]

The top graphic shows the new parliament under the current first-past-the-post system which is inherently unfair. The number of seats gained by the Tories and the SNP does not reflect the percentage of people who actually voted for them. In 2011 the Tory/LibDem coalition, at the insistance of the LibDems, held a referendum on switching the system to proportional representation (PR). Two thirds of the UK voted against a system that would have made their vote count. Surprisingly even in Scotland where PP is used to elect MSPs 2/3 voted against changing the system for the UK parliament. The SNP would like to change the system. The Tories, not so much.

The graphic underneath shows what the parliament as it would be under a PR system, in this case the one used in election MEPs. The number of seats won by each party reflects the number of votes cast for them. It also shows that more people voted against Brexit than for it. This election was not a mandate to ‘get Brexit done.’ 

One of the reasons given for the rise in populism is that people feel their voices are not being heard. As these graphic show that is certainly the case in the UK

Click source for a breakdown of those graphics.

[frothytundra]

I Want My Vote to Count

I Want My Vote to Count

We recently had a municipal election in Edmonton, and before I voted I watched all two hours of the video of the candidates’ forum for the ward in which I live. It soon became apparent that the incumbent was only marginally interested in engaging with the public, one candidate was completely out of his depth, one thought he was everyone’s intellectual superior, and three candidates had a good…

View On WordPress

[thusdiedfingolfin]

Trump only has 25,000 more votes at this point than Clinton, and yet has completely dominated the Electoral College. Remind me again who said the Election was rigged in Hillary's favor?

[appalledbc]

Is a Referendum the Best Way to Determine an Electoral System?

Theoretically a referendum may seem like the most obvious and democratic way to determine whether electoral reform is desirable in Canada; but, as we have seen with referendums at the provincial level in BC, PEI, and Ontario, the results almost always render the status quo, not change, largely because of the nature of the choices: the known against the unknowns. That is, first-past-the-post, whether on the referendum ballot or not, is stacked in a binary structure almost always against both a ranked ballot system and proportional representation. There is of course a built in psychological bias for the known in such a situation, and inevitably the unknowns tend to split the alternative vote. Those who want a referendum and favour FPP would seem to be aware of this potential structural deficiency, recognizing that first-past-the-post would inevitably be triumphant either by choice or default.  In this context, then, a referendum could be construed as an illusion of democracy.

And so it’s clearly in the interests of those who enjoy a substantial degree of power through first-past-the post to maintain it. In this case, that would be the good old Conservative Party of Canada, who  - let’s be honest - don’t really want a referendum because in fact they really don’t want electoral reform.* Instead, they just don’t want Parliament to consider the issue,** for their real concern is recouping the power they have enjoyed through FPP or, at the very least, maintaining the status quo. 

Their call for a referendum, in other words, is a mere political ploy, not a genuine gesture in the direction of real democracy; and, sad to say, they’ve sucked in quite a few on the left of the political spectrum.  THE CPC know that were proportional representation, for example, to be established, in many of the ridings where they have won by FPP  - particularly rural ridings - their power would be significantly eroded.***

A referendum offers a second advantage to those who don’t want electoral reform in that it provides a much more straightforward opportunity to lobby if not propagandize against whatever systems are presented as alternatives to FPP by way of various media, editorials,**** op eds, radio talk shows and advertising.  This would be a much more difficult task to execute if reform were to be considered through a consultative all-party parliamentary process that would have the sanctioned weight of the representatives Canadians have elected to govern them provided Parliament respects the perspective of both the Courts and the Constitution on such a weighty matter in its deliberations. 

Those who want a referendum, then,  would seem to deny the reality of the messy complexity of representational government in favour of the delusional simplicity of both a referendum and First-Past-the-Post. But this is no simple issue. It requires widespread in-depth serious discussion and debate, for the very foundation of our political system is at stake.

________________________

*Cf. Robin Sears: “The Conservatives are already demanding a referendum on any change to the electoral system, secure in the knowledge that that would mean certain defeat for any reform. Some gullible journalists have defended a referendum as an essential democratic test. What that naively fails to recall, of course, is that there has never been a non-partisan “democratic” referendum. The final choice will inevitably be political and require partisan approval.” 

**Why would they? First-past-the-post is not on the agenda, as the Liberal election platform clearly says: “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system. We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.”

***Under FPP, less populated rural ridings carry as much representational weight in parliament as do densely populated urban ridings. Because of that discrepancy, they are really less democratically representational. They also happen to be quite conservative in general.  Although they wouldn’t completely solve the representational imbalance, both a ranking ballot system and proportional representation in particular would  at least be more representational of all voters in a given riding and thus more democratic.

****This has already begun in earnest in rural newspapers  and mainstream media such as The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and the Ottawa Citizen.

[appalledbc]

The Agonizing Challenge of Voting in 2015

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

There's been much talk of late about uniting the main opposition parties in some sort of delusional effort to defeat the Harper Regime come the next faux election either as a one-time strategic plan or by way of a more long term relationship.  Here's a reality check for those fantasizing about such a possibility.

1) First of all, not one of the parties is really progressively left, though all three like to spin that they are when it suits them, especially if they espouse support for social programs. Every single one of them unequivocally subscribes in varying degrees to the core neoliberal tenet of market fundamentalism, continuing to promote implicitly through policy the financialization of the economy at the expense of the real productive economy, though the latter is  occasionally paid due lip service.  Practising politics within the neoliberal bubble disqualifies them immediately in my mind. The LPC has always been neoliberal (remember the austerity programs of the 90s?), and so it could be said - perhaps ironically - that the LPC is less reprehensible than, say, the NDP with its major shift away from traditional progressive thinking to the centre during Layton's reign and now its bold shift to right of centre with Mulcair and all his talk of "free trade," "polluter pays" mechanisms (internalizing "externalities") of "sustainable development" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and sanctioning of the tar sands under the right conditions. This is spun as modernizing the party of course, but it’s really about swinging votes. The GPC seems, at first glance, to be the most progressive, but a closer look reveals that its so-called green economy policies are really green-washing of good old market based solutions, a strategy recognized long ago by Naomi Klein among others. (Cap and trade - with which each party has flirted at one time or another - is of course another form, albeit diluted, of green-washing grounded in market fundamentalism.)

At best, then, the opposition parties can offer only a tinkering with a system that needs to be completely transformed. No one, so far as I can see, can even offer serious reform let alone the major transformation required aside from a less than satisfactory motion adopted at a GPC convention to restore the Bank of Canada partially to its original function but apparently with a series of inhibiting attached caveats.

2) Then there is the party dynamic itself to consider. How can one support, as Vaughan Lyon in his book Power Shift reminds us, any party given the deep partyocracy of all the parties whereby party discipline has eroded the very core of Parliament as an institution? What kind of power does an individual MP really have as a representative of a constituency or as a conscientious individual? Can anyone honestly say we have vigorous, honest debate and discussions in standing committees, cabinet, caucus, or question period? Is parliament only a divisive, adversarial cock pit? Can anyone honestly say that MPs themselves are really doing anything about this horrendous democratic deficit in our key political institution that is supposed to express the will of the people except mouthing off to the media occasionally from within their own partisan party bubbles? I mean, seriously, does anyone, aside from political junkies, really pay that much attention any more aside from the poor journalists and talk show types who are obliged to cover this pathetic mockery of parliamentary democracy?   3) So called representational government is failing us in the context of  increasingly irrelevant, dysfunctional parliamentary and party systems, but it is also failing us in terms of real democratic representation. What's fair, what’s democratic, about a first-past-the-post system in which an unsubstantial  majority - achieved only because of a faulty riding distribution system - can exclude the representational values of the rest of those who voted? What's the direct pay-off for our vote? What’s the incentive to vote?  Next to nothing unless you're a member of the winning team. Yet people continue to vote out of some sense of moral obligation even though, if they really thought about it for a minute, they would realize it’s like playing the lotto numbers. Despite its messy challenges, proportional representation as an electoral system whereby power is distributed through negotiations and coalitions based on a share of the vote is clearly far more democratically representational than our current electoral sham, but don't expect any party with power - namely, the big three - to push for it any time soon. For them, party power and its substantial perks come first. 4)  In terms of fundamental democratic representation, then, the electoral system itself is deeply flawed, but so too is the structure of riding distribution on which it sits whereby the less densely populated rural ridings of Canada, especially in Ontario, carry as much representational weight as those ridings in urban and suburban areas that have much higher populations.  Such a disparity favours the Harper Regime of course because these rural ridings tend to be politically dominated by C/conservative old white bread men who on a daily basis read the Sun newspapers (distributed freely in such establishments as McDonalds and Tim Hortons) and never miss the radio talk shows. There are also a considerable numbers of the 10% of Canadians who are evangelicals in these ridings too, a major strategic component, as Yves Engler reminds us, of Harper's voting base. And since the Regime, being good little neoliberals, treats voter constituencies as strategic marketing targets, this demographic and the conservative immigrant "ethnic" market of the suburbs, now enhanced with the proposed riding expansions, are key marketing terrains for growing another Regime victory. And so it will be very difficult for real progressives to participate in the next election without some sort of moral compromise.  So what does one do? Vote while holding one's nose, absent oneself from the system and not vote at all, continue protesting in various ways from outside, or begin the process of hollowing out from within somehow? Action of some sort is required. Apathy and indifference are not options, for they play significantly into the Regime’s hands - a Regime which continues to wear us down day after day with an extraordinary accumulation of appalling actions. Some days one can be forgiven for speculating  that the daily grinding down is a strategy in and of itself. Illegitimi non carborundum Addendum: As Engler suggests, the rationale for Canada’s defense of Israel right or wrong is less to woo the 1.3% potential Jewish Canadian voters than the evangelicals, who have a deep ideological stake in the preservation of Israel as the “Holy Land.”

2) Interesting to note the following about the four party leaders: Harper is a former Alliance and before that a Reform party member, Ray a former provincial and presumably at the time federal NDP member, Mulcair a former provincial Liberal MPP, and May may have been a Progressive Conservative during the Mulroney era.

[ingmundaro-blog]

The Case for Mixed Member Proportional Voting

What is the quality they ultimately defines a democracy? In my mind, this quality would be ability of the government to match as closely as possible to the will of the people. So, then what would we call a system where a third of the population could control more than half of the government? What would we call a system where the views of 7% of the population aren't reflected at all? And what would we call a system that punishes political diversity? Well, that would be the Canadian version of democracy.

Now, our system isn't terrible. In fact, the Canadian parliamentary system has a lot of positive assets and a proud tradition. But the parliamentary system is old. The type of voting common in most parliamentary democracies, first-past-the-post, is a legacy of time when tabulating votes and sending out information was quite the ordeal. 100 years ago it was the best system possible. However, as communications technology has progressed many nations have adopted voting systems that are much superior to our own. 

So, what is "first-past-the-post"?

First-past-the-post is our current system of voting. It is a system of voting, where the person who wins the most votes wins the election. Seems fair doesn't it?

The problems with first-past-the post:

-In a first-past-the-post system a candidate doesn't need the majority of the votes to win. If there are 4 candidates running for election, it is possible to win with only 26% of the vote. Even if that means 74% of the electorate opposes the winning candidate. This is endemic in our current system. In our last election, the Conservative Party won 39.6% of the vote and 53.9% of the seats in the House of Commons. In fact, during my life time the closest a majority government has been to having the majority of the vote was in 1993 when the Liberals won 41.2% of the vote.

-First-past-the-post punishes political diversity. Majority governments arise in Canada not necessarily because of a surge in support for one party, but because of rift in either the Left or the Right. Say you're Liberal Party supporter. You want the Liberals to win the election but you know that the NDP is stronger in your riding. You don't like the Conservatives. If you vote for the Liberal candidate, you shoot yourself in the foot and hand the election to the Conservative. If you opt for the NDP candidate, then you're electing in a sense the lesser of two evils. 15 years ago, the same could be said about supporters of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Ultimately the system forces a two-party system.

-First-past-the-post election results can be tampered with by "gerrymandering". That is if you get to choose where the boundaries for ridings are, you have considerable power to carve out seats that favour one party over the other simply by looking at actuarial data. 

-First-past-the-post also punishes parties with national but not regional appeal. Take a look at the Bloc. With the exception of last election, they have been able to hold around 40+ seats, while parties with double their support (the NDP) held fewer seats, and parties with roughly the same support (the Greens) received no seats. The Greens are an interesting case for this because their national support nearly halved last election but they won their first seat by focusing more regionally. 

So, what's a solution to this?

There are a few different voting systems used around the world. The one that I think is the best option is called "Mixed Member Proportional or MMP" and is used in Germany, Japan, and new Zealand.

What's MMP?

In an MMP election where every voter get two ballots. The first ballot is for the standard first-past-the-post riding. You vote for a regional candidate to represent you in parliament. The second ballot is for a party. They are completely separate, you can vote for a candidate from party A on your first ballot and vote for party B on the second ballot, if you like. The first ballot is tabulated and seats are distributed as done currently. After this is tabulated, members are added from a party lists (released in ranked order prior to the election) to the parliament to make each party's share of seats equal to the share of seats each party should get proportionally from second ballot. After this is done all members have the same voting rights. 

As an example. Say there are 3 parties running A, B, and C. On the first ballot A gets 55% of the seats, B gets 30% and C gets 15%. And on the second ballot A receives 40%, B receives B receives 35% and C receives 25%. Then members would be added to the parliament from Party B and C until the make up of the parliament is closer to the 40-35-25 split in the second ballot.

What are the advantages of MMP?

-No minority rule. If a party receives less than 50% of the vote, that party can not form a majority government by itself. This means the make-up of the government will be closer to the will of the voters, and coalitions will have to be broader and more representative. 

-Gerrymandering would be irrelevant because the second ballot would make-up for poorly drawn voting ranges.

-More political diversity would be possible, because voters will not have to worry about about splitting the vote. Voters would be free to vote their conscience. And thusly, smaller parties would have more support.

Mixed Member Proportional would be a huge improvement upon our current system of voting, and would make democracy in Canada more fair and representative. As a nation that values democracy it is important that we continue to try to improve it as best we can.