Comments on: “Shadow” MPs

By: Mark R

Mark R — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:30:20 +0000

@ Chris, 18: New York has internal competition between legislators about once a decade. Since the state seems to lose two seats at a clip, the State Legislature usually jams to sitting Democrats into one seat and two sitting Republicans into an another and then draws nice safe districts for everyone else.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:29:46 +0000

The large magnitude impact on time spent on constituency affairs can go both ways. In a 3-seater, you have to get a quarter of voters to get a quota, so you have to please more of your constituents. In a 9 seater, you just have to keep 10% of them happy. The first would encourage broad high quality constituent service; the second encourages pork and special interest votes to keep your 10% of voters happy.

One pro-STV argument not heard often enough is that it encourages internal competition. Members of the same party must compete to earn the higher preference from their party’s supporters (be that in predilection for a group ticket, or else at the general election). Members of both parties have to compete to offer the best constituency services, the best legislative ability and the best service in forming the government (be that as a minister, as a minor party with coalition bargaining power, or based on opposition performance). This internal competition between sitting MPs for local votes is something which few systems have.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:16:44 +0000

They’re trying to phase out 3 seaters in Eire where possible, and have had up to 9 seaters in the past. Now that Fianna Fail is a smaller party, now would be the time to increase magnitude and therefore proportionality.

By: Mark R

Mark R — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:08:35 +0000

I would agree that larger districts might help Ireland. But they also have a senate that doesn’t seem to do much of anything. That seems like a good place to put those “eminent persons” who cannot get elected due to lack of appeal to their constituents.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:30:30 +0000

Ireland uses some unusually small magnitudes,3, 4,and 5, which may contribute to the perception that TDs spend too much time on constituency work. The Tasmanian assembly had magnitude 7 until the duopoly tried to exclude the Greens by reducing the magnitude to 5. The ACT has 2 five-seaters and one seven-seater. Malta uses magnitude 5. Northern Ireland uses magnitude 6. The Australian upper house magnitudes range from 5 in Victoria to 21 in New South Wales.

The solution to the irish TD problem may be larger electorates with a uniform magnitude of 5 or 7. The eminent persons who are just dying to serve their country could easily be elected in larger districts and could then have eminent careers meditating on the good, the true and the beautiful.

By: DC

DC — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:00:50 +0000

One of the great criticisms levelled at PR-STV in Ireland in the last few years is that TDs are too responsive to their constituents, leaving them little time think great thoughts, and that seeking election under PR-STV is generally an undignified prospect for persons of stature and quality-a closed national list, or single-member districts, would allow for “parachuting” of such fine individuals (who mercifully but inconveniently lack the necessary common touch) into the Dáil.

What I find curious is that persons who would accept and even celebrate this sort of competition in almost every other aspect of society reject it when it comes to political representation.

By: Tom Round

Tom Round — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:27:04 +0000

What l meant @7 is that when offered a choice of legislative representatives to approach, most citizens seem happy to take any who can assist them. Australian political parties certainly don’t think that their supporters living in hostile electorates are adequately serviced by “their” “local” MP (how could they be, when s/he belongs to Team Satan?!) and so designate duty Senators/MLCs. And clearly few – or no – voters in Auckland Central have been telling Ms Ardern “Pass off you unterloper! Wiv ulriddy got our virry own local Impee un the person uv Muss Nukki Kaye! You’re awskin us tuh commut thuh ilictoral uquavilint uv udultery uf we upproach you ibout constutuincy mitters!”
What’s especially interesting is that duty Senators/MLCs and list MPs are not directly removable by the voters in that district, yet are still marketed by their parties as helping to provide adequate local representation. Shouldn’t, then, a second or third (or fifth, or seventh) MP for the area who’s actually elected by the residents thereof provide at least equivalent quality representation? Or is it essential that (a) “the” local MP be clearly first in the hierarchy, (b) voters not have a choice that might see party colleagues campaigning against each other, and/or (c) there be only 1, or at most 2, extra parliamentarians shadowing the electorate, whereas STV-PR adds too much of this good thing?

By: Mark R

Mark R — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:37:40 +0000

I think the idea, which I do not agree with, is that having “one local representative” for every person and only one representative is that it means that “any” candidate can be voted out and that everyone has the same level of direct representation. If the local representative doesn’t respect the people, he is voted out. If there are five representatives, none of them “belongs” to everyone and few of them can be voted out.

I think that theory falls apart in safe districts where the incumbent will still pick up 60% of the vote or more even if he eats babies on national television or in any district where the 40% or more of the people who didn’t vote for the winner may feel that they have no effective representation at all.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:37:04 +0000

“In fairness, I have heard opponents of STV argue that Hare-Clark in Tasmania is only workable because there’s an upper house to provide single-member representation on local issues. (Curiously, the two chambers’ boundaries don’t coincide. I understand this is common for US State legislatures but cross-cutting is unknown in WA and Victoria – upper house regions are formed by grouping whole lower house districts).”

Each Tasmanian MHA electorate has the same boundaries as the corresponding federal electorate (which are underpopulated compared to the rest of the Commonwealth as it is). The average total population per electorate is 100,000, smaller than our single-member House of Rep districts in Texas by nearly 70,000 (though certainly nowhere near New Hampshire’s 3300 per rep). NSW’s SMDs have nearly 80,000 people, while there are only 20,000 per MHA in Tasmania; the electorate of Murray-Darling is over 7.5 times larger than the largest electorate in Tassie, with just 1/5 the number of MLAs. Considering all this, the ‘no local representative’ argument sounds rather feeble.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:21:19 +0000

It depends on the state–in Texas, it’s definitely not the case. Counties with the population for more than 2 representatives have all representatives contained within the county, and while Senate seats are also supposed to follow county lines as closely as possible, they don’t tend to in large urban areas.

Other states compound the issue with the concept of ‘floterial’ districts which float over smaller primary districts. New Hampshire is the most profligate user of this system–just within Hillsborough County, there are some voters who only get to elect two representatives in a single district, others who elect 11 representatives in a single district, and others who elect 5 representatives in 2 districts (their 2-member primary district and a 3-member floterial district shared with three other primary districts), all using plurality at-large voting. Their House of Reps has 400 members for a state population of 1.3 million (an average of 3,300 per Rep), almost 4 times as large as the cube root. The 24 Senators each represent a more normal 55,000.

How this system passes muster under one man one vote I have no earthly idea.