Propagation: Seeds & scions (10)

10 ideas sprouting »

1. (1) I had to chuckle when I read this: There’s probably more scope for … motherhood-esque terms for reforms and those who support them (sadly, ‘pro-choice’ is taken – Americans are the experts at this sort of thing and are likely the best source of ideas in this area). In fact, we Americans have become experts at giving everything more than one name and then quibbling among ourselves about which one offers the best “framing” of our issue.

   (2) In the Canadian context, I agree with MSS’s comment that AV/IRV is more likely to be a dead end than a stepping stone to PR. I’m still a long way from convinced that the same is true in the U.S.

   (3) I think this survey provides the best insight into the lack of adoptions, at least in British Columbia — well worth a careful read.

   Seed planted by Bob Richard — 14 July 2009 @ 20:05

2. I’m also impressed by the evidence that the effect of AV is to reduce the plurality of voices and parties in the legislature. I used to support use of AV over FTFP until I looked more closely at Australian elections.

   Its interesting that the use of runoffs have not had quite the same effect in France.

   Seed planted by Ed — 15 July 2009 @ 16:17

3. Of course, in France there was an existing very fragmented party system into which a two-round system was (re-)introduced, in 1958.

   All path dependency aside, there are good logical reasons to expect that a two-round system, especially of the majority-plurality variant used in France, would tend to support a multiparty system, but AV (IRV) would not.

   When there is an actual second round of voting if no candidate has won a majority of first votes, parties have much more opportunity to enter as “spoilers” (and all the more so, again, when the runoff is a restricted plurality rule and not 50%, plus 1).

   Advocates of AV/IRV often favor it because it avoids spoilers. Yes, and perhaps too well.

   (I still need to address the question of the incompatibility of AV and MMP, which has come up in another thread. I’ll get to it–promise.)

   Seed planted by MSS — 15 July 2009 @ 16:27

4. Ed,

   When you and many others talk about the evidence that the effect of AV is to reduce the plurality of voices and parties in the legislature, do you mean reduce compared to plurality? Reduce compare to two-round runoff? Reduce compared to STV (probably not, because that’s a given)?

   Specifically with regard to Australia, is the idea that had they never adopted AV for the lower house, more small party candidates would have won? Is small party support distributed geographically so that this would have been possible? Would the effect of plurality on the rural/urban alliances among the right-of-center parties been the same as the effect of AV?

   Also, can you point me to one or a handful of sources that present and evaluate this evidence?

   Thank you.

   Seed planted by Bob Richard — 15 July 2009 @ 17:16

5. MSS,

   I know I’m being a pest, but I’m afraid I don’t understand this part: Advocates of AV/IRV often favor it because it avoids spoilers. Yes, and perhaps too well.

   By “too well” do you mean that reducing spoiled elections reduces the effect of small party and independent candidates on outcomes? If so, then that’s a good thing for the small parties themselves, because spoiled elections are what prevent people who support these candidates from actually voting for them. Or do you mean that small party and independent candidates win less often? If so, then less often that under what other voting rule(s)?

   Seed planted by Bob Richard — 15 July 2009 @ 17:34

6. I don’t have time to provide sources, but the evidence from Australian House of Representatives is pretty clear.

   Minor parties such as the Greens, Australian Democrats, and Democratic Labor have existed in Australia and elected candidates to the Senate, which uses STV. None of these parties have ever won a House of Representatives seat in a general election, or come even close. The National/ Country Party has won seats in coalition with the Liberals, though the alliance is so close there is reason not to treat Liberals and National as separate parties.

   First Past the post elected legislatures such as Canada, New Zealand (before the switch) and the UK have all had significant third party representation, from both national third parties and regional third parties. Even in the case of the US House of Representatives the Socialists have won a couple of seats. The PDS, the Greens, and I think also the FDP have won Bundesrat districts at various times.

   So the record is pretty clear. This could be due to cultural reasons unique to Australia, though its hard to see what the are. Minor parties in Australia seem to be much more accepted than in the US. It could be due to the failure of minor party leaders to cultivate regional bases of support, though the dynamics of AV would encourage that, as these parties can exert influence through second preferences without actually winning a seat in the House. I suspect voters may not want to be in a situation where a minor party is a “finalist” for a seat. Mathematically, its hard for a party polling 10% to get enough a deviation in any one district to get over 50%, but they might reach the 30% mark.

   Seed planted by Ed — 15 July 2009 @ 18:08

7. Bob, as an orchardist, I have ways of identifying, and dealing with, pests.* You are not a pest!

   I am going to transplant this discussion to a more prominent location.

   _______
   * Organically, of course. But I don’t imagine it makes much difference to the pests themselves.

   Seed planted by MSS — 15 July 2009 @ 18:32

8. I’d propose the following. Have the loser in the final count act as the first person to substitute any dying or retiring member of Congress.

   Seed planted by Derek — 15 July 2009 @ 21:41

9. I don’t know if Declan lives in BC, but I strongly disagree that the change in the question explains the difference between the 2005 and 2009 result. Very few people paid attention to the question, and it was universally understood as a “do over”.

   STV wasn’t a novelty recommended by a generally-liked Citizens’ Assembly any more, and the more considered view of the electorate was negative.

   The simplest explanation is that Canadians in general are unhappy with minority parliaments and post-election coalitional politics. They don’t have a strong sense that a majority government should have received a majority of votes. On the other hand, they do have a strong sense that the government itself should be FPTP, so when a party wins with fewer overall votes (as happened in 1996 in BC), it discredits the system in the eyes of “folk political science.”

   Seed planted by Pithlord — 22 July 2009 @ 13:25

10. I have expressed my skepticism previously that the ballot-wording effect could have been that big.

    Yes, Declan is in Vancouver.

    Seed planted by MSS — 22 July 2009 @ 20:57

RSS feed for comments on this post.

TrackBacks

To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=3227
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)

Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.

Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.

Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!

Seedbed

The soil is ready for planting: