First Past the Post

[Undesired Walrus]

Contrary to how I felt in the last few years, I have recently become an increasing fan of FPTP as a method of electing representatives. I used to see FPTP as disenfranchising thousands of voters but have since realised that rather than being disenfranchised, those voters simply lose as we all do in life.

I imagine I'm in a fairly small minority here, so I'll throw open the floor. Why not FPTP?

 

[Pope130]

Growing up in the US, it's the system I'm used to. It is, in some respects, more democratic than the parliamentary proportional representation system.

With FPTP the elected representative must convince the majority of a small group that they are the best choice. With proportional representation one can be elected by a small percentage spread over the whole country.

This usually leads FPTP candidates to run to the center, proportional reps to run to the base.

Both systems seem to work, neither perfectly.

 

[Corsair 115]

I imagine I'm in a fairly small minority here, so I'll throw open the floor. Why not FPTP?

The results of the Canadian federal election of 2011 perhaps offers an indication of the shortcomings of the method. The Conservative Party nationally accounted for just 39.6% of the votes cast yet garnered 53.6% of the seats in Parliament. The NDP, in contrast, accounted for 30.6% of the votes cast nationally but 33.4% of the seats in Parliament. The Liberal Party received 18.9% of the votes cast nationally and 11.0% of the seats in Parliament.

Arguably, the disparity between the aggregate vote and the resulting seats in Parliament is not as representative of the broader electorate as it might otherwise be.

 

[theprestige]

With FPTP the elected representative must convince the majority of a small group that they are the best choice. With proportional representation one can be elected by a small percentage spread over the whole country.

This usually leads FPTP candidates to run to the center, proportional reps to run to the base.

Both systems seem to work, neither perfectly.

/thread

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Apart from the obvious faillings of FPTP pointed out by corsair above, it also has weird side effects - for example, geographically concentrated groups have substantially more voice than geographically distributed groups.

Also in Canada the vast majority of people who cast votes do so to support their preferred party or leader. Relatively few people vote for a specific MP they feel will best represent their riding - so this purported superiority of FPTP is illusory / moot.

Also in FPTP (in Canada at least) you end up with ministers who are supposed to set policy for the whole country while representing their riding. There is a potential for conflict of interest here.

While I personally don't see the need for a riding-based system, I understand a lot of people (by force of habit or otherwise) are loth to part with it. I think the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system would have been great for Ontario, because it would have maintained riding representation while allowing for proportionality in the legislature. That was defeated in a referendum, unfortunately.

Federally, I think you could achieve a pretty good mix of regional representation and proportionality if you apportioned senate seats proportionally after every election and kept the house the same, and then accepted the senate as every bit as 'legitimate' as the house (for any non-Canadians reading this, the senate is considered by many to be a rubber-stamp house full of patronage appointees...)

 

[fitzgibbon]

I'm a fan of a preferential ballot. However, as much as it has to recommend it I don't see it being adopted simply because the party that is in power is loath to change the circumstances that brought it power.

Fitz

 

[PhantomWolf]

If Government is supposed to be about representation of the people, then those in parliment should be representative of the way the people of the country are.

With FPTP this doesn't happen. Third partys can easily get 25% of the overall vote, and get no seats in the Parliment, while governments can be formed on just 35% of the overall vote.

How can a government that recieved 35% of the overall vote, which might only be 70% of those eligable to vote, claim that it has a meaningful mandate to do anything? Why should a party that was voted for by less than 25% of all possible voters be able to run the country and do anything it likes? That is not democracy.

 

[McHrozni]

If Government is supposed to be about representation of the people, then those in parliment should be representative of the way the people of the country are.

With FPTP this doesn't happen. Third partys can easily get 25% of the overall vote, and get no seats in the Parliment, while governments can be formed on just 35% of the overall vote.

How can a government that recieved 35% of the overall vote, which might only be 70% of those eligable to vote, claim that it has a meaningful mandate to do anything? Why should a party that was voted for by less than 25% of all possible voters be able to run the country and do anything it likes? That is not democracy.

On the other hand, the proportional representation more often than not ends up with one party that heads the coalition in charge, with minor parties serving it's whims. If they're lucky they might actually get some of their unique proposals (if any) through.
It's exactly the same problem, just in a different form. The same goes for voting options, you have a "left" and a "right" option and you usually - but not always - know which side your party is on.

McHrozni

 

[Beerina]

With FPTP the elected representative must convince the majority of a small group that they are the best choice. With proportional representation one can be elected by a small percentage spread over the whole country.

This usually leads FPTP candidates to run to the center, proportional reps to run to the base.

Both systems seem to work, neither perfectly.

/thread

Pretty much. In graduate school for computer science we studied voting systems as a subset of game theory and decision theory. It's pretty damned hard to design a system that can't be gamed in one way or another, when people aren't just voting for some people, but voting against others.

 

[Horatius]

While I personally don't see the need for a riding-based system, I understand a lot of people (by force of habit or otherwise) are loth to part with it. I think the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system would have been great for Ontario, because it would have maintained riding representation while allowing for proportionality in the legislature. That was defeated in a referendum, unfortunately.

The problem with the particular MMP plan that was offered in that referendum is that how they allocated the Proportional seats was screwed up. They wanted to use them to "top up" those parties that won fewer Riding Seats than their "proportional" vote suggested they should have won. The notion was, that the riding-level votes were inherently flawed, and needed to be "fixed".

They then advertised that this system gave you "more choice", since you could cast two votes, potentially for two different parties. But, if you did that, there was a very real chance your second vote would offset your first vote, meaning most people would just vote the same way with each vote.

Had they promoted a MMP system in which the two votes were entirely unconnected, I'd have voted for it.

 

[The Don]

On the other hand, the proportional representation more often than not ends up with one party that heads the coalition in charge, with minor parties serving it's whims. If they're lucky they might actually get some of their unique proposals (if any) through.

The argument I heard against proportional representation is that in the event of a coalition government, minor parties could hold the senior party in the coalition to ransom.

I suppose it depends on whether coalitions are rare (like the UK) or more the norm (like in most of Europe). Some countries seem to cope fine, others not so much

 

[Damien Evans]

The argument I heard against proportional representation is that in the event of a coalition government, minor parties could hold the senior party in the coalition to ransom.

I suppose it depends on whether coalitions are rare (like the UK) or more the norm (like in most of Europe). Some countries seem to cope fine, others not so much

And Australia is often governed by The Coalition of the Liberal and National Parties.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Why not FPTP?

It's technologically obsolete. Back in yonder days it made a lot of sense for a village or a district to send someone to the capital to represent them. Today, we have mass communication and mass travel.
How many people today expect their representative to stand for their neighborhood rather than for certain issues?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Apart from the obvious faillings of FPTP pointed out by corsair above, it also has weird side effects - for example, geographically concentrated groups have substantially more voice than geographically distributed groups.

African-Americans provide an interesting case study in that regard. As a disenfranchised minority, they had no adequate representation. Representation of their interests largely resulted from creating voting districts in which they have the majority.
That's a noble goal but this so-called gerrymandering can also be used for less noble purposes.
Either way, it seems to me to be a complete perversion of democracy. The bureaucrats drawing the district lines have an influence on the election far beyond that of the statistically predictable voting public.

 

[lopeyschools]

The argument I heard against proportional representation is that in the event of a coalition government, minor parties could hold the senior party in the coalition to ransom.

I suppose it depends on whether coalitions are rare (like the UK) or more the norm (like in most of Europe). Some countries seem to cope fine, others not so much

I think coalitions become a lot more common with PR systems, simply because PR systems allow smaller parties to survive.

When I was younger I thought FPTP was junk but nowadays I think it generally results in more stable governments. As mentioned FPTP makes radical fringe parties less likely, as most grope towards the center to stay electable.

 

[MikeG]

First past the post systems which allow local groups to select their own candidates can end up with a more maverick, less sheep-like set of parliamentarians. With Proportional Representation, central party control over the order of candidates on a list means that only the absolutely rock-solid toe-the-party-line candidates can hope to get far enough up the list to have a chance of being elected. Party lackies .......lobby-fodder........whatever you want to call them, are the sort of politicians I dislike the most.

I prefer FPTP for that reason, and for the clear results it generally produces. Too many PR governments have perpetual coalitions, meaning small parties can be forever in power, and thus have a disproportionate influence.

The downside of FPTP in my view is the number of safe seats, meaning that elections are geared to a few "swing voters" in a few marginal seats. As I live in one of the safest seats in the UK, my vote counts for absolutely nothing.

Mike

 

[Corsair 115]

The argument I heard against proportional representation is that in the event of a coalition government, minor parties could hold the senior party in the coalition to ransom.

Federally, there were minority governments from 2005-2011 in Canada. It all seemed to work out well enough. There have been instances of minority governments at the provincial level as well.

 

[bjornart]

In a proportional representation system, of nearly any kind, smaller parties play a part in the legislature and possibly government. This means people whose opinions or priorities aren't encompassed by the major parties principles and priorities participate meaningfully in politics and their voters, at least to some extent, feel represented. It means your vote counts, even if you live somewhere where the majority disagrees with you, as long as there are at least some people who agree with you.

But it does mean less stability, which can be considered good or bad depending on what aspects you examine and value.

My intuition would be that FPTP would lead to lower voter turnout, but the available data doesn't support this.

 

[McHrozni]

The argument I heard against proportional representation is that in the event of a coalition government, minor parties could hold the senior party in the coalition to ransom.

Either that, or they serve their larger masters. Not all that great, overall. It's usually doesn't get that bad.

What Pope130 said, really. Both systems have flaws, yet function.

McHrozni

 

[lopeyschools]

Federally, there were minority governments from 2005-2011 in Canada. It all seemed to work out well enough. There have been instances of minority governments at the provincial level as well.

You seem to remember this time frame differently then I do. I remember it being a praticularly intense time in politics with lots of uncommon tactics and jockeying for power.