The results are posted on the Elections Ontario website.
63.2% of valid votes cast instruct the government to remain on the FPTP system.
It's disappointing to say the least, but we respect the decision of the electorate.
As of right now, this blog will not be posting any new items.
Thanks, everyone, who contributed.
Showing posts with label fptp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fptp. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - The Summary
Over five pieces, I have discussed the truth about FPTP. If you couldn't tell, most of it was in response to the ironically named "Truth" About MMP list put out by the advocates for the status quo.
The fact of the matter is, the referendum isn't about choosing whether or not we should move to mixed member proportional (MMP); it's about choosing to remain on the first-past-the-post or moving to mixed member proportional.
The advocates of the current system will tell you the real solution is to fix the current system and not to change, but somehow in the same breath argue that the system has worked well unchanged for a couple of hundred years.
The advocates of the current system will tell you they support electoral reform but that the real solution is to find a different electoral system other than MMP, but somehow fail to explain why we haven't explored a different electoral system for a couple of hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the advocates of the current system want to remain on first-past-the-post. What they don't want you to know, however, is the truth about first-past-the-post.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
The fact of the matter is, the referendum isn't about choosing whether or not we should move to mixed member proportional (MMP); it's about choosing to remain on the first-past-the-post or moving to mixed member proportional.
The advocates of the current system will tell you the real solution is to fix the current system and not to change, but somehow in the same breath argue that the system has worked well unchanged for a couple of hundred years.
The advocates of the current system will tell you they support electoral reform but that the real solution is to find a different electoral system other than MMP, but somehow fail to explain why we haven't explored a different electoral system for a couple of hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the advocates of the current system want to remain on first-past-the-post. What they don't want you to know, however, is the truth about first-past-the-post.
- First past the post is only the electoral choice of 8 countries of the world. Some of those countries use proportional representation, too. Most of the other countries that currently use FPTP inherited it from their colonial power.
- Under first past the post, governments in Ontario have reduced the representation in Ontario.
- Under first past the post, political parties determine who and what you vote for.
- Under first past the post, elections are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get. You could get a minority electing a majority, the second place party forming a majority, or the complete elimination of any political opposition. The worst part of all of this is that these situations are the norm.
- First past the post lets parties exploit the weaknesses of the system to their advantage. It's no longer necessary to campaign on policy. As long as you can scare your opponent's traditional voters away, it's not necessary to achieve a majority of votes or to form a consensus with someone else. You just need one more vote than your opponent.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Andrew Coyne : Quick Hits
Andrew Coyne is back with some quick hits on the biggest myths about MMP.
Parties breeding like rabbits, where Andrew shows that Germany under MMP has approximately the same average number of political parties as those under FPTP (Canada, UK, and the USA).
In unstable governments, Andrew breaks down the number of elections by electoral system.
Parties breeding like rabbits, where Andrew shows that Germany under MMP has approximately the same average number of political parties as those under FPTP (Canada, UK, and the USA).
In unstable governments, Andrew breaks down the number of elections by electoral system.
No. of elections 1945 - 1998Hordes of extremists shows us that the only extreme one-issue party we'll find is the "Party for the Animals" in the Dutch pure PR system.PR: MMP
Germany 14
PR: party list
Italy 14
Norway 14
Finland 14
Netherlands 16
Belgium 17
Sweden 17
Denmark 22
Plurality (first past the post)
United Kingdom 15
Canada 17
Australia 22
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - Politics as Usual
What is tactical voting? Why is it prevalent in FPTP?
Tactical voting is voting for a party or a candidate that a voter may not want in an effort to defeat a candidate the voter does not want to win. Usually, the voter chooses the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate.
For example, a voter prefers Candidate A, but really dislikes Candidate B. If the voter perceives Candidate C has a better chance of defeating Candidate B, the voter will vote for Candidate C in the hopes of making sure Candidate B is defeated.
This has even occurred recently when Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty called for tactical voting. Hoping to defeat Opposition Leader, John Tory, he attacked the NDP by saying that "a vote for the NDP is in fact a vote for the Progressive Conservatives."
Tactical voting is often described as a vote against someone instead of a vote for someone. This tends to lead to voter apathy.
It's prevalent in FPTP for the simple fact it's only necessary to have the most votes in a riding, meaning close ridings have this occur more often. The candidate who benefits most from tactical voting will often play up fears in the hopes of just slightly tipping the balance in their favour.
It's a compounding effect, as this negative campaigning also leads to voter apathy.
I like some of the policies of one party, but I like some of the policies of another party. If I select FPTP, will the parties work together?
Most certainly not. As false majorities are the norm, political parties that form governments declare they have the mandate to do as they see fit - that may be to implement a radical platform or to completely abandon the promises they were elected on.
Voters are left to vote "all or nothing" and hope for the best.
I support Party A, but my riding has consistently supported Party B. I feel like my vote is wasted. Is it?
A vote is never truly wasted, but it may seem to you that your vote is unnecessary. This could lead someone to stop voting.
I find I can't support the old line parties anymore. I like a smaller party - if I vote for them, what are the chances my candidate will win?
It's not likely - in fact, it's a practical impossibility.
The FPTP system, by setting the threshold for winning so low, makes it harder for smaller parties to get seats. Under FPTP, even a small party with a sizable portion of the popular vote may not get a seat in the legislature!
Tactical voting is voting for a party or a candidate that a voter may not want in an effort to defeat a candidate the voter does not want to win. Usually, the voter chooses the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate.
For example, a voter prefers Candidate A, but really dislikes Candidate B. If the voter perceives Candidate C has a better chance of defeating Candidate B, the voter will vote for Candidate C in the hopes of making sure Candidate B is defeated.
This has even occurred recently when Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty called for tactical voting. Hoping to defeat Opposition Leader, John Tory, he attacked the NDP by saying that "a vote for the NDP is in fact a vote for the Progressive Conservatives."
Tactical voting is often described as a vote against someone instead of a vote for someone. This tends to lead to voter apathy.
It's prevalent in FPTP for the simple fact it's only necessary to have the most votes in a riding, meaning close ridings have this occur more often. The candidate who benefits most from tactical voting will often play up fears in the hopes of just slightly tipping the balance in their favour.
It's a compounding effect, as this negative campaigning also leads to voter apathy.
I like some of the policies of one party, but I like some of the policies of another party. If I select FPTP, will the parties work together?
Most certainly not. As false majorities are the norm, political parties that form governments declare they have the mandate to do as they see fit - that may be to implement a radical platform or to completely abandon the promises they were elected on.
Voters are left to vote "all or nothing" and hope for the best.
I support Party A, but my riding has consistently supported Party B. I feel like my vote is wasted. Is it?
A vote is never truly wasted, but it may seem to you that your vote is unnecessary. This could lead someone to stop voting.
I find I can't support the old line parties anymore. I like a smaller party - if I vote for them, what are the chances my candidate will win?
It's not likely - in fact, it's a practical impossibility.
The FPTP system, by setting the threshold for winning so low, makes it harder for smaller parties to get seats. Under FPTP, even a small party with a sizable portion of the popular vote may not get a seat in the legislature!
Larger parties then use this as evidence to refer to these parties as "fringe" or not representative of electoral wishes.
No. If anything, political parties have more power over candidates, making them more responsible to the party brass than the voters of Ontario.
All candidates will want to maintain high standing within the party - toeing the line to ensure they are not booted from caucus or removed as a candidate. This is over and above the party support and finance that a candidate needs to get elected at the riding level.
Up next, a summary.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - False Majorities
Wikipedia defines representative democracy thusly:
FPTP could be called "Second Place Forms Government Sometimes, Too".
Isn't it undemocratic to have a minority of the population electing a majority of the legislature?
It most certainly is, but supporters of FPTP will tell you this is the most desirable form of government.
Up next, politics as usual.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by a majority of votes by the people being represented. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
Keep that definition in mind as we progress.
I've heard that one of the strengths of FPTP is that, in most cases, governments elected in this system are majority governments. Is that true?
Well, that is true. But, it's called a false majority.
A false majority is when representatives of one political party form a clear majority in the legislature, but were elected with a minority of the popular vote.
Surely though, it's rare for a political party to win a minority of the votes but to take a majority of the legislature. Right?
That's not right. In fact, that's the most common result in FPTP. It is rare for a political party to actually obtain a majority of the popular vote. Even advocates for the FPTP system acknowledge this.
For historical purposes, the last time an Ontario election resulted in a political party forming government receiving a majority of the votes was in 1937, when a coalition of the Liberals and Liberal-Progressives took 51.6% of the popular vote. They took 65 of 90 seats (72%).
But, FPTP just says that a party has to take the most votes to form government. So, FPTP always ensures that the party with the most votes forms government. Is that true?
That is most certainly not true.
- In the 1998 Quebec general election, the separatist Parti Québécois took 42.87% of the popular vote compared to the Liberal Party which took 43.55%. Yet, the PQ formed a majority with 76 of the 125 seats.
- In the 2006 New Brunswick general election, the Liberal Party took 47.1% of the popular vote compared to the Progressive Conservative Party which took 47.5%. Yet, the Liberals formed a majority with 29 of the 55 seats.
FPTP could be called "Second Place Forms Government Sometimes, Too".
Isn't it undemocratic to have a minority of the population electing a majority of the legislature?
It most certainly is, but supporters of FPTP will tell you this is the most desirable form of government.
Up next, politics as usual.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - How Political Parties Choose Candidates
I heard that the people who get chosen to run in a political riding under FPTP would be named from a list of supporters of political parties. Is that true?
That is correct. Only party members may run as a candidate for a political party under FPTP.
So who gets to determine the makeup of the political candidates?
The political parties are solely responsible for the composition of the party candidates under FPTP. They can either be determined by direct orders by the party leadership, or they might be determined by a vote by party members.
No matter what, the candidates for election will be in the hands of members of political parties, who make up a tiny part of the population of Ontario.
Non-aligned voters do not get a say at all.
If I do not like the candidate representing the party that I want to vote for, can I alter the name so I can put the name of my preferred candidate in when it comes time to vote?
No, you cannot. FPTP only allows for closed party candidate selection. This means that voters cannot cross off names or change the candidate's name in the ballot box. The only choice given to the voters under FPTP is to vote for the candidate chosen by the political party.
Your preferred candidate may run as an independent, but they are unlikely to win under FPTP.
But, under FPTP, I can still support the political party, by voting for the party but not the candidate, correct?
No, that is not correct. If you want to support the political party, you must vote for the candidate you do not support.
Wait. I will have to vote for someone I may not want to represent me? Isn't that undemocratic?
Yes. You cannot support your political party and not support their preferred candidate. Similarly, you cannot support your local candidate and not support their political party.
You must choose between selecting a political party you do not support, a candidate you do not support, or spoiling your ballot. Those are your only choices.
That is undemocratic.
Isn't giving political parties total control over selecting the candidate undemocratic?
It is important to be highly regarded within the party to be selected or chosen as a candidate. It helps if the candidate is also well known in the community, but this is not always the case.
If a candidate is highly regarded by the party but not well known in the community, he or she may be parachuted into a riding, most likely into a riding that's called a "safe seat" - one where support runs high for the party, regardless of candidate. The candidate will likely have no ties to the community - neither personal nor professional. He or she is then pretty much guaranteed a seat in the legislature, regardless of how well the party does in an election.
So if you want to vote for a party but do not like whom they have running in your riding, you are pretty much stuck. Not only is this undemocratic, it is also unfair.
If I don't like a candidate running in another riding, how can I make sure that he or she does not get into office?
You could move to that riding, and vote in their election. For most of us, that's simply not possible. Once you have moved, you'd also have to convince the rest of the riding not to support that candidate - and if you don't have a lot of ties in the community, it may be all but impossible.
How many political parties in Ontario use FPTP to select leaders?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select leaders. That is, of course, unless the candidate is acclaimed.
How many political parties use FPTP to select candidates?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select candidates. That is, of course, unless the leader selects the candidate or the candidate is acclaimed.
Why would partisan activists of political parties then support FPTP if political parties themselves do not use FPTP?
That's for another debate, but it certainly does indicate that even the political parties themselves understand that FPTP is not the best method for electing officials.
Up next, false majorities.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
That is correct. Only party members may run as a candidate for a political party under FPTP.
So who gets to determine the makeup of the political candidates?
The political parties are solely responsible for the composition of the party candidates under FPTP. They can either be determined by direct orders by the party leadership, or they might be determined by a vote by party members.
No matter what, the candidates for election will be in the hands of members of political parties, who make up a tiny part of the population of Ontario.
Non-aligned voters do not get a say at all.
If I do not like the candidate representing the party that I want to vote for, can I alter the name so I can put the name of my preferred candidate in when it comes time to vote?
No, you cannot. FPTP only allows for closed party candidate selection. This means that voters cannot cross off names or change the candidate's name in the ballot box. The only choice given to the voters under FPTP is to vote for the candidate chosen by the political party.
Your preferred candidate may run as an independent, but they are unlikely to win under FPTP.
But, under FPTP, I can still support the political party, by voting for the party but not the candidate, correct?
No, that is not correct. If you want to support the political party, you must vote for the candidate you do not support.
Wait. I will have to vote for someone I may not want to represent me? Isn't that undemocratic?
Yes. You cannot support your political party and not support their preferred candidate. Similarly, you cannot support your local candidate and not support their political party.
You must choose between selecting a political party you do not support, a candidate you do not support, or spoiling your ballot. Those are your only choices.
That is undemocratic.
Isn't giving political parties total control over selecting the candidate undemocratic?
It is important to be highly regarded within the party to be selected or chosen as a candidate. It helps if the candidate is also well known in the community, but this is not always the case.
If a candidate is highly regarded by the party but not well known in the community, he or she may be parachuted into a riding, most likely into a riding that's called a "safe seat" - one where support runs high for the party, regardless of candidate. The candidate will likely have no ties to the community - neither personal nor professional. He or she is then pretty much guaranteed a seat in the legislature, regardless of how well the party does in an election.
So if you want to vote for a party but do not like whom they have running in your riding, you are pretty much stuck. Not only is this undemocratic, it is also unfair.
If I don't like a candidate running in another riding, how can I make sure that he or she does not get into office?
You could move to that riding, and vote in their election. For most of us, that's simply not possible. Once you have moved, you'd also have to convince the rest of the riding not to support that candidate - and if you don't have a lot of ties in the community, it may be all but impossible.
How many political parties in Ontario use FPTP to select leaders?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select leaders. That is, of course, unless the candidate is acclaimed.
How many political parties use FPTP to select candidates?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select candidates. That is, of course, unless the leader selects the candidate or the candidate is acclaimed.
Why would partisan activists of political parties then support FPTP if political parties themselves do not use FPTP?
That's for another debate, but it certainly does indicate that even the political parties themselves understand that FPTP is not the best method for electing officials.
Up next, false majorities.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Andrew Coyne : The fearmongers debunked
Andrew Coyne is back with another article arguing in favour of the mixed member proportional electoral system. This time, Mr. Coyne targets the myths that the group who advocate for the first-past-the-post system have dreamt up. Dreamt up, that is, after having long given up actually defending the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Indeed, apologists for the status quo have more or less given up arguing for first past the post on its merits. The pretense that it delivers “stable majorities” can no longer be sustained: recent elections in Ontario have produced, in order, NDP, Conservative, and Liberal governments, none with a majority of the votes, yet each interpreting the support of its own minority as a mandate to impose a succession of radically different policy regimes on the rest of us.Mr. Coyne systematically debunks the myths. His posts, as always, are worth the read.
So instead first-past-the-posties have focused on raising fears about the alternative. These fall into two broad categories: fears about proportional representation in general, and fears about mixed-member proportional in particular.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - Representation
Does FPTP give us better representation than MMP?
The answer is no, of course not.
Right now, Ontarians, compared to citizens in other provinces, are already the most poorly represented citizens in Canada. In our current legislature, there are 103 Members of Provincial Parliament (MPP). Under FPTP, on average, there is one 1 MPP for every 118,061 citizens based upon the 2006 Census data (Ontario population, 12,160,282).
Under the MMP model proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly, the total number of members would rise to 129, thereby meaning 1 member for every 94,266 Ontarians.
But, doesn't that just mean there is less direct representation?
No, that's not true either.
Under the current model, an Ontarian is represented directly by their local MPP, and indirectly by the Premier and the Cabinet. For example, if a citizen has an issue with education, they are free to contact their local MPP, the Minister of Education, or the Premier with their concerns.
Under the new model, an Ontarian is represented directly by their local MPP, directly by thirty-nine other Ontario-wide MPP's, and still indirectly by the Premier and the Cabinet. In this example, if a citizen has an issue with education say, they can contact their local MPP, or one of the other thirty-nine Ontario-wide MPP's, the Minister of Education, or the Premier with their concerns. In this way, Ontarians are represented directly by 40 Members plus the Premier and his or her Cabinet. Remember, those 39 Ontario-wide MPP's are relying on your vote just as much as your local candidate (more so, in fact).
Wait. How can a list candidate be relying on my vote more than my local candidate?
If a local candidate is removed from caucus, they can still run in a local riding as an independent. Name recognition for the local candidate will run high, if he was a high performing candidate, such as a Chuck Cadman, or a maverick non-conformer, like a Garth Turner. However, the list candidate does not have a local riding to fall back on if they are removed from caucus.
This means, if the list MPP is removed from caucus, and if they want to run again in the next election, they will need to find a local riding - which means, they will have to represent you to get your vote, in that riding. Or, at the very least, bring that name recognition to the local riding. That's no different under FPTP.
Fine. But, isn't more politicians a bad thing?
More politicians are a bad thing, if they do not represent anything. As it would stand under the proposal, there would be 1 Member of Provincial Parliament for about every 95,000 Ontarians, with the total number of MPP's being 129.
By comparison, some other ratios are:
The answer is no, of course not.
Right now, Ontarians, compared to citizens in other provinces, are already the most poorly represented citizens in Canada. In our current legislature, there are 103 Members of Provincial Parliament (MPP). Under FPTP, on average, there is one 1 MPP for every 118,061 citizens based upon the 2006 Census data (Ontario population, 12,160,282).
Under the MMP model proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly, the total number of members would rise to 129, thereby meaning 1 member for every 94,266 Ontarians.
But, doesn't that just mean there is less direct representation?
No, that's not true either.
Under the current model, an Ontarian is represented directly by their local MPP, and indirectly by the Premier and the Cabinet. For example, if a citizen has an issue with education, they are free to contact their local MPP, the Minister of Education, or the Premier with their concerns.
Under the new model, an Ontarian is represented directly by their local MPP, directly by thirty-nine other Ontario-wide MPP's, and still indirectly by the Premier and the Cabinet. In this example, if a citizen has an issue with education say, they can contact their local MPP, or one of the other thirty-nine Ontario-wide MPP's, the Minister of Education, or the Premier with their concerns. In this way, Ontarians are represented directly by 40 Members plus the Premier and his or her Cabinet. Remember, those 39 Ontario-wide MPP's are relying on your vote just as much as your local candidate (more so, in fact).
Wait. How can a list candidate be relying on my vote more than my local candidate?
If a local candidate is removed from caucus, they can still run in a local riding as an independent. Name recognition for the local candidate will run high, if he was a high performing candidate, such as a Chuck Cadman, or a maverick non-conformer, like a Garth Turner. However, the list candidate does not have a local riding to fall back on if they are removed from caucus.
This means, if the list MPP is removed from caucus, and if they want to run again in the next election, they will need to find a local riding - which means, they will have to represent you to get your vote, in that riding. Or, at the very least, bring that name recognition to the local riding. That's no different under FPTP.
Fine. But, isn't more politicians a bad thing?
More politicians are a bad thing, if they do not represent anything. As it would stand under the proposal, there would be 1 Member of Provincial Parliament for about every 95,000 Ontarians, with the total number of MPP's being 129.
By comparison, some other ratios are:
- Quebec has 1 Member for every 60,369 citizens (125 seats in the National Assembly; based on a population of 7,546,131).
- Alberta has 1 Member for every 39,643 citizens (83; population of 3,290,350)
- Manitoba has 1 Member for every 20,147 citizens (57; population of 1,148,401)
- PEI has 1 Member for every 5,031 citizens (27; population of 135,851)
- Nunavut has 1 Member for every 1,551 citizens (19; population of 29,474)
So, Ontario is largely the true conservative bastion when it comes to the number of politicians (federally, they are a little more "conservative" in their representation) and will remain the conservative bastion it is, under MMP.
Up next, how political parties choose candidates under FPTP.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Referendum Discussion Online with Elections Ontario
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Loren Wells, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, will be online with the Globe & Mail discussing the electoral reform referendum between 1 pm and 2 pm this afternoon.
Loren Wells, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, will be online with the Globe & Mail discussing the electoral reform referendum between 1 pm and 2 pm this afternoon.
Loren Wells, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, has an extensive background in election administration in Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels.
At Elections Ontario, she deputizes for the Chief Electoral Officer and assists him with the administration of all aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration, the conduct of voting, the training of election officials and providing voter education and information to the public.
This will be an impartial discussion on the referendum:
By law, neither Ms. Wells nor other employees of Elections Ontario can take a position on the merits of the question on the referendum ballot. We will not forward to her any question that asks her to do that. Ms. Wells can answer your questions about the background to the referendum, the question, the mechanics of voting on it, the requirements for passage etc.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Andrew Coyne : The case against first past the post
Andrew Coyne posted yesterday a fantastic case against the first past the post electoral system.
Mr. Coyne's piece is well worth the read.By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy. We are not governed by majorities, competition between parties is not free and fair, nor do their relative fortunes depend on their popularity with the voters. Most striking of all, we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some -- most, in fact -- do not count at all.
That is the record of plurality or "first-past-the-post" voting, the system Ontario voters are to be asked to replace in next month’s referendum. Its supporters appeal to a sentiment of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But it is broke, and this is the opportunity to fix it.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - What is it?
On October 10th, you may be asking yourself, "What is First-Past-the-Post, and if it's the best system of democracy, why are so many calling for it to be reformed?"
First, where does the term come from?
First, where does the term come from?
The term first past the post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) was coined as an analogy to horse racing, where the winner of the race is the first to pass a particular point on the track (in this case a plurality of votes), after which all other runners automatically and completely lose (that is, the payoff is "winner-takes-all"). There is, however, no "post" that the winning candidate must pass in order to win, as they are only required to receive the largest number of votes in their favour. This sometimes results in the alternative name "furthest past the post".
That's nice, but how does it work?
There is a very simple example that quickly illustrates how FPTP works.
Imagine you and nine friends are trying to decide on where to go for dinner and suppose your group comes to the decision to use the FPTP method of voting - that is, whichever restaurant was picked the most, wins. Each of your friends and yourself pick a different restaurant, with the exception of two - they both choose McDonald's. All ten of you (having agreed to be bound by the will of the vote) are now off to enjoy Big Mac's or Chicken McNuggets.
No consensus and certainly no majority of opinion. Seems trivial in this example, you might argue. Suppose however, you were deciding policy on something important like social services, taxation, or whether or not to go to war.
Let's also clear out some misconceptions about FPTP.
First Past The Post is used by the most people - about 45% - in the world living in democracies, in about 45 countries.
This is due more to history than a true choice or selection of democratic traditions. If your parents have bad habits, the children will tend to copy or mimic those bad habits too.
Of the 43 countries that currently use FPTP:
- 32 are former colonies or protectorates of the United Kingdom, or former colonies of former colonies of the United Kingdom (Papua New Guinea from Australia, Samoa from New Zealand, Bangladesh from Pakistan). Remember, the United States and Canada are former British colonies too.
- India uses Proportional Representation in their upper house.
- The United Kingdom does not use FPTP in Scotland, Wales (local elections only), and Northern Ireland, nor to select representatives for the European Union.
- Louisiana does not use FPTP.
MMP is currently in use in Germany, New Zealand, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Lesotho.
... and South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Next up, how FPTP gives us poor representation.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Political Staples : It Doesn't Get Worse Than This
Originally posted at Political Staples. A reminder to those conservatives that hold FPTP as the model of democracy.
So I've been reading much of the pro-MMP and anti-MMP blogposting and op-eds and I don't think anyone has mentioned the ultimate abuse case of FPTP, the 1987 New Brunswick provincial election. Here are the results of that years popular vote.
Liberals: 60.4%
Progressive Conservative: 28.6%
New Democrats: 10.6%
Other: 0.4%
Clearly a huge victory for the Frank McKenna led Liberals, a clear majority and a clear mandate. So how many seats did they win? All 58 of them! If you were part of the 40% that did not vote for the Liberals you got zero representation - it is the ultimate example of wasted votes.Think about this a little further keeping our Westminster Parliament system in mind. There was no leader of the opposition sitting in Parliament or any opposition members to challenge the government in the legislature. If I remember correctly they had to make special compensation to allow the opposition leader into the House to ask questions just so Parliament wasn't a complete farce.
Think it can't happen again, just watch the Newfoundland and Labrador election going on right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
