Monday, October 01, 2007

MMP: Debunking the Myths, Chastising the Fearmongers

 
Vote for MMP

The amount of misinformation being spread about the Mixed Member Proportional voting system is truly frightening. I thought the citizens of Ontario deserved better than that. This is an important referendum and it shouldn't be decided by people who misrepresent the truth. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue but it would be a real shame if voters were frightened into rejecting MMP by lies and distortions.

I've already tried to explain why the Sunday Toronto Star was wrong in its editorial [The Toronto Star Endorses First-Pass-the-Post], but others have done a better job.

Here's an article in The National Post by Andrew Coyne [PR:Debunking the fearmongers]. Coyne says,
... we are told that changing the system will result in chronic instability, a series of minority governments, one falling after the other; or else that it will lead to chronic gridlock, a legislature divided into dozens of smaller parties, some extremist, who would use their bargaining power to hijack the political process, demanding that one or other of the mainstream parties adopt their agenda in return for their support. The spectre of Israel and Italy are often invoked, as if to cinch the argument.

We can dispose of the last easily enough. One: Israel and Italy are uniquely divided societies, and were long before they adopted PR. Two: Neither country has ever used anything like the mixed system proposed for Ontario, but rather adopted much more extreme forms of PR, with no threshold for support.

As for the more specific fears, they would perhaps be more tenable were we the first country ever to try proportional representation -- were it not already in use, in one form or another, in most of the democratic world. But in fact it is, and in no country have any of the scare stories come to pass.
Read the entire article to see just how misleading the opponent of MMP have become.

Then there's the press releases on the Vote for MMP website. The first one addresses the claim that party lists would be drawn up by party bosses and would favor hacks. This accusation was made in the Toronto Star editorial, but it's popular fodder for all opponents of MMP. Here's the truth from REALITY CHECK: VOTEFORMMP.CA CALLS ON TORONTO STAR TO CLEAN UP MISLEADING REPORTING.
VoteForMMP.ca is accusing the Toronto Star of fear-mongering and inaccurate journalism in the Star's editorial today against electoral reform.

In today's editorial, the Toronto Star repeated the misleading claim that under Ontario's proposed new MMP system, the new province-wide candidates “could simply be appointed by party bosses.”

"This argument is regularly being used falsely by unthinking defenders of the status quo to deter support for needed electoral reform," said Rick Anderson, campaign chair of VoteForMMP.ca. "It's a shame that a media organization with the Star's credentials is not more careful with the facts regarding such an important question confronting voters."

...

In today's system, parties are left to determine their own methods for democratically nominating local candidates. Likewise, the Citizens’ Assembly left it to the individual parties to determine their own methods of nominating both riding and provincial candidates in the future, with the provisos that the parties are required to nominate their candidates publicly before voters vote and to publish the details of their candidate nomination processes in a clear, democratic and transparent fashion.

"In the other jurisdictions which use MMP all parties have adopted democratic candidate nomination processes for proportional candidates, just as they have for local candidates. Moreover, even in advance of the new system being adopted three of Ontario's four parties have already made public statements affirming they will follow democratic practices to nominate MMP candidates." (See backgounder below.)

"The notion that under MMP candidates would be appointed is simply hogwash," said Anderson. "Star readers should demand greater accuracy from their paper. Informed voters require a higher standard than this inaccurate sloganeering."
The important point here is that Ontario parties will almost certainly adopt democratic practices in drawing up their lists. It makes sense and it's what other countries do. Let's not hear any more fearmongering about party lists. From now on, people who use that argument are not guilty of mere ignorance.

What about the idea that a Mixed Member Proportional voting system would lead to political chaos? This is another of the arguments used in the Toronto Star editorial and it's widely believed to be true. Here's the real truth based on available facts [REALITY CHECK #2 TORONTO STAR WRONG ABOUT WHETHER FPTP OR MMP LEADS TO POLITICAL CHAOS].
VoteForMMP.ca says the Toronto Star owes it to voters to do its homework on whether first-past-the-post (FPTP) or mixed member proportional (MMP) leads to better political consensus.

In an editorial today, the Toronto Star claimed that “Jurisdictions that have adopted some form or other of proportional representation – think of Italy, Israel, Germany, Belgium – have become notorious for chaotic politics and legislature gridlock.”

More than 80 countries use proportional voting systems, with some for more than a century. If colourful anecdotes suffice for “evidence”, does that mean Zimbabwe or Nigeria prove that FPTP is “notorious” for producing oppressive and corrupt regimes?

The respected comparative studies show countries with proportional representation enjoy stable, effective, representative, accountable governments, which tend to produce legislation more in line with majority viewpoint while maintaining strong economic performance.

Notwithstanding colourful politics, Italy is actually a fairly stable and successful country, as vibrant in its political culture as it is in so many other ways, and hardly a failing state. The periodic reorganizations of its governing coalitions are sometimes colourful to be sure, but are generally accomplished without elections or even changes of government, more akin to what we think of as cabinet shuffles than anything else. (See: minority governments in Canada for more disruptive examples of chaos). Where does the Star get off treating Italy this way - and forgiving what happens here in Canada when voters are divided in their preferences?

Germany is an example which directly disproves the Star's supposed point. When the 2005 elections produced a split outcome, and smaller parties demanded high concessions as the price of coalition support, the two largest parties instead agreed to collaborate together in forming a successful government. The Star should check its facts.

...

The Star is perpetuating two misleading myths: one that FPTP is relatively stable and the other that PR is not. The facts are generally the opposite of the Star's comfortable prejudice in favour of the status quo.

13 comments:

  1. Larry, could the dirty scoundrels be framing the debate with un-ethical and distorting frames.

    This sounds like a job for RE-FRAMING MAN AND HIS REVISIONARY NEW FRAMES AND MORE PURE ETHICS.

    We need a professional. A champion.
    Our champion.

    Nisbet, Nisbet, he's our man.

    Our re-framing man can whup your foul framing man's sorry arse.

    If this sounds a lot like lawyering, I think that we are getting to know framing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christ Gerald, change the bloody record. I know you've got a bit of a thing about framing (coupled with a nice line in "zionist" bashing), but your rants are getting a bit tedious.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, our representative leaders have framed Iran as the evil monster who must be murdered.
    Murder is a tough frame to sell, but our credentialed intellectuals are completely serious.
    It is difficult for me to think that anything else is of much significance.
    I do not want my country to murder any more people.
    The Iranian people have not harmed anybody.
    Iran has not attacked anybody in 2000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is admirable that you would like to encourage your country to desist from aggressive behaviour, but would it not be better to discuss it in the pertinent post? Indeed, it is somewhat surreal to be reading about foreign affairs in an important issue localised to Ontario. I see no relationship between electoral reform and your pet issue, so kindly desist from littering. Everyone will thank you for it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I find that there are misstatements and overreactions aplenty on both sides. Just two examples from this post ...

    ...in no country have any of the scare stories come to pass.

    Interesting claim, and far too broad. I would agree that in no country sharing certain key characteristics with Canada have any of the extreme scare stories come to pass, but that absolute denial of any issue is not impressive.

    ...this accusation was made in the Toronto Star editorial, but it's popular fodder for all opponents of MMP. Here's the truth ...

    Hold on there. Classic propaganda technique - "Some say blah blah ... but here's the truth." There's precious little related to politics that merits being labelled as unqualified truth, and this ain't an example. For any issue like this, that sort of construction should set off alarm bells for any thinking reader.

    And later you say, "Here's the real truth...". Nope ... even worse. Almost as bad as "true facts".

    On balance, I lean toward MMP, but there are two points about FPTP that merit some thought. First (and I wish I could remember where I read this) is the observation that "FPTP elects governments; MMP elects parliaments." Yes, we've had a number of minority governments in Canada, but how many cases can you recall where cabinet ministers have been from a party other than the one with the most seats? There are examples, but not many. That's almost inevitable in coalition governments. (And that's not all bad, either ... this thing is more shades of grey that many people want to admit.)

    In other words, with FPTP, you generally know on election night who the government will be. Not so with nearly the same certainty when it comes to MMP (or other "proportional" systems). There is often a period (from brief to protracted) when negotiations take place to determine just what the composition of the government will be.

    The second point that comes to mind is that FPTP generally makes it much easier to throw the rascals out.

    In my mind, the scales are closer to balanced than the avid proponents of either side will admit, and I'm not impressed with most of the columns, op-ed pieces, web sites, and editorials I've seen which were avidly in favour of one or the other. The Star editorial referred to struck me as particularly sloppy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott, your point about exaggeration is well-taken. I should have been more careful about my choice of words.

    I agree completely with your claim that the issue is more nuanced than most people are willing to admit. I've come down on the side of MMP but I won't be the least bit upset if FPTP wins on October 10th. While the system is partially broken, IMHO, it's not in such bad shape that we absolutely have to do something about it.

    Being somewhat adventuresome, I often lean toward change just for the sake of change. The MMP system looks like a lot of fun so let's try it and see what happens. I don't think it could possibly be any worse than what we've got (which is pretty good). It may be a lot better. It's a good idea to stir the pot from time to time just to keep people from getting in a rut.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would be happier about this if the background material did not contain an important error in explaining how the system works. The document at http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/One%20Ballot,%20Two%20Votes.pdf
    gives an example of how the system works, but it generates only 98 seats. It is clear the writer does not understand how the system must work.

    If you follow the apparent rules and use a more realistic scenario of 15 parties, with 10 of those not making the 3% threshold but still getting 20% of the party vote, then 20% of the party seats would not be filled. Clearly the system must first calculate percentages, then disregard (these votes will not count!!) the votes of all those people who voted for parties under the threshold, then recalculate the percentages for the remaining parties.

    As well, we know that FTPT produces majorities without a majority of the votes. This means that some parties will be in excess of their fair share of the seats even before the party people get allocated. You can't take away any FPTP seats, so you will have fewer party seats.

    Finally, more popular parties will elect disproportionately more FPTP members, and hence fewer party members. The big parties will elect almost no party members. This happens in the example in the above document -- the biggest party elects only 2 party seats, the second smallest gets 11 party seats. So, who wants to go to all the trouble of running in the party slot for a big party when their is almost no chance of them getting a seat. They would be better off hooking up with a smaller party. The system encourages fragmentation.

    I don't see any evidence that the people who proposed this system looked closely at a large number of fairly obvious result scenarios. They were poorly informed. Why should we accept a proposal from a poorly informed group?

    ReplyDelete
  8. And furthermore,

    I dragged the popular vote numbers in federal elections from

    http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/results.php

    into a spreadsheet and implemented the incorrect calculation method indicated in my previous comment (close enough for a quick spreadsheet) and MMP would have affected federal elections only 3 times (since we started out abusing democracy with FPTP in 1867). So the spreadsheet is wrong for two reasons - uses simplified calculation, assumes electoral system does not affect how parties organize or how people vote.

    However, the three changes to majority/minority rule were all from majorities to minorities, and all Liberal majorities.

    year MMP (FPTP) Total seats
    1997 144 (155) 301
    1980 141 (147) 282
    1945 118 (125) 245

    It would not have prevented Trudeau from reversing himself on wage and price controls, or Chretien from reversing himself on the GST.

    This analysis tells us nothing about the future, with MMP or FPTP. The analysis the citizens panel did tells us nothing about the future, with MMP or FPTP.

    Will MMP make voters feel more involved? Pay more attention to the issues? Will disaffected voters simply vote for the single issue party representing their issue, remaining ignorant of larger issues? Will this increase their ignorance of general issues?

    I suspect the problem is one person, one vote. Time to reconsider that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brent says,

    I don't see any evidence that the people who proposed this system looked closely at a large number of fairly obvious result scenarios. They were poorly informed. Why should we accept a proposal from a poorly informed group?

    The people who proposed the system are called "Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform." They have a website at A New Way to Vote in Ontario where they have published all of their documentation. It may take you several days to read through it all (I haven't) but the document you really want is Description of the Ontario Citizen's Assembly's Mixed Member Proportionl System where they outline and discuss several scenarios.

    In addition, the documentation on the website describes how the system works in other countries and discusses the results of many elections. I think it's pretty well explained and there aren't any significant problems that the Assembly missed.

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Forgive my mathematical laziness, but does anyone know whether all the new seats will need to be used in every parliament, or only if needed to make up a party's deficit?

    I've heard the argument that adding a full 39 new seats is bad - more wasted tax dollars or something...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Larry, this second document includes the serious analysis.

    Interesting that in some jurisdictions almost everyone who runs for a seat is also on the party list - ordered, but a second chance. Rather than members at large, most people will actually be associated with a riding. Some ridings will have two representatives!

    Yep, an interesting system which brings with it a number of warts, as does FPTP.

    Which is the prettier toad?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brent says,

    Interesting that in some jurisdictions almost everyone who runs for a seat is also on the party list - ordered, but a second chance. Rather than members at large, most people will actually be associated with a riding. Some ridings will have two representatives!

    Yes, I noticed that too. It makes sense once you think about it because the party that wins the largest number of ridings will almost never get any seats from the list. So if you want to be in the government you have to run in a riding!

    This negates one of the advantages of the lists in MMP. You can't use the list to get experts into the cabinet because the government members will have to be elected in the ridings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So the spreadsheet is wrong for two reasons...

    Here, try this one.

    ReplyDelete