Since Canada has a first-past-the-post voting system, it is subject to the vote-splitting problem. I'd be shocked if you're not familiar with the problem--but not that shocked, so I'll just explain briefly.
Most politicians earn their seat with less than 50% of the popular vote, and sometimes as little as 33%, and this occurs because of vote splitting: I may strongly prefer both candidates A and B over C, but I am only allowed to approve one of them on the ballot. Often more than 50% of the people feel the same way, but candidate C will win if the vote splits between A and B.
This seems obviously undemocratic to me. I have seen dozens of proposals for voting/election systems, and FPTP is the one and only system that has the vote-splitting problem.
In order to overcome the vote-splitting problem, some NDP and Liberal folks are proposing temporary cooperation--instead each party running 20 candidates in 20 ridings, each party could run 10 candidates in different ridings (the ridings would be selected mathematically to maximize the chances of winning for each cooperating party). This avoids vote splitting, since voters are left with only two choices.
But other folks in the same parties are calling this "undemocratic" because it "reduces voter choice". This is a very disingenuous thing to say, because the current FPTP system only provides "choices" that don't matter. After all, it is well-known that most people's votes don't count in FPTP. For example, if 10% of the population votes for the Green party all across the country, it is still possible for the Green party to end up without a single seat in Parliament, because 10% is not enough to win any single riding anywhere (only regional differences can overcome this problem, which is why regional parties like the Bloc Quebecois have had a disproportionate amount of power in the past). So I ask you, what good are "choices" if our choices can't possibly win the election?
Electoral reform is the key to fixing this problem, but the party in power (the Conservatives) will fight against electoral reform as long as the status quo benefits them. We need electoral reform to bring true voter choice--to make sure that votes really count for something. And to get electoral reform the Conservatives must be reduced to a minority power in Parliament, and in order to accomplish that we will need one-time, temporary cooperation between the other parties. Don't spit on the proposal for being "anti-voter-choice", when the final result will be improved voter choice in the future!
Addendum: Leadnow.ca was encouraging people to send letters to Justin Trudeau in favor of cooperation for electoral reform. So I thought, what the hay, and sent this:
Mr. Trudeau, I was very disappointed with your statements denouncing proportional representation and trashing the idea of cooperation to pass electoral reform. I don't hold out much hope that you'll actually listen to people who have studied electoral systems and electoral reforms, but I already blogged about this so you might as well be in the loop.
I don't have to tell you what the vote-splitting problem is. I have seen dozens of proposals for voting/election systems, and our FPTP system is the one and only system that has the vote-splitting problem. To overcome it, we need electoral reform, and to get electoral reform, you'll need the support of the NDP, the support of the electorate, and most of all, to do well in the next election.
But you seem to be saying that cooperating with the NDP would be undemocratic because Canadians don't need "fewer choices". This is a very disingenuous thing to say, because the current FPTP system only provides "choices" that don't matter. After all, it is well-known that most people's votes don't count in FPTP. For example, if 10% of the population votes for the Green party all across the country, it is still possible for the Green party to end up without a single seat in Parliament, because 10% is not enough to win any single riding anywhere (only regional differences can overcome this problem, which is why regional parties like the Bloc Quebecois have had a disproportionate amount of power in the past). So I ask you, what good are "choices" if our choices can't possibly win the election?
Electoral reform is the key to fixing this problem, but the Conservatives will fight against electoral reform as long as the status quo benefits them. We need electoral reform to bring true voter choice--to make sure that votes really count for something. And in order to accomplish that we will need one-time, temporary cooperation between the other parties. Don't spit on cooperation for being "anti-voter-choice", when the final result will be improved voter choice in the future!
I would say one more thing, because you're in favor of only a very modest reform to use Alternative Vote (a.k.a. Instant Runoff Voting). I would much rather see a system that honestly attempts to assess voters' desires, such as direct representation or mixed-member proportional (MMP). I'm sure that you could sell IRV/AV to the average voter who doesn’t know any better, but no one who has studied democratic systems, and all the myriad possibilities that exist, would want to settle for IRV/AV, a riding-based system that is unstable in close races and is unjustified from a mathematical perspective.
A key problem with all single-riding systems is that they are geographically biased. To illustrate, imagine that 40% of the voters prefer party A and 30% each prefer parties B and C. Reasonably, this should produce a minority government. However, imagine you could randomly shuffle where everyone lives, so that the same 40-30-30 split exists in every single riding. In that case, the same party would win in every riding, and take every seat in the country! This occurs with every riding-based system: FPTP, IRV/AV, and even superior systems like Ranked Pairs and Range Voting. I ask you, why should winners be picked based on where the voters live instead of what they want? Of course, people are not shuffled in reality, so what this means in practice is that (1) no riding-based system is ever proportional, (2) these systems give too much power to regional parties like Bloc Quebecois, emphasizing divisions among people, and (3) they give too little power to small parties like the Greens.
Unfortunately, big parties tend to like this bias against small parties (and independents), so they don’t do electoral reform, and this is just plain wrong on principle.
There are other problems with riding-based systems too, e.g. if a party expects to win 10% of the seats, it must field 10 times as many candidates as it actually needs, so as to have a candidate in every riding! It also makes politics costly and stressful for the candidates, by guaranteeing that most candidates will not win a seat. These systems encourage negative ads, too, because instead of demonstrating your value as a candidate, you can instead convince the voter that "the other guy" is bad; negative ads don’t work so well if each voter has lots of choices. Finally, these systems constrain voter choice–for example I live in Calgary but I can’t vote for the Liberal in downtown Calgary, why? Just because I’m in the northeast! And neither Liberal will win anyway!
In summary, the AV/IRV proposal is literally the smallest possible improvement that could be made. AV’s better than first-past-the-post, to be sure, but it’s nothing to get excited about.
No comments:
Post a Comment