Comments on: Drawing the lines

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:25:38 +0000

I know that I said we should go back to the point of this thread, but as a recent example of how PR settles down eventually to a fairly stable system, take a look at the latest poll in NZ.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/20362/Default.aspx

This poll shows that, apart from one seat each for ACT and United Future, which would both be lost if their leader retired, the entire Parliament would be divided between four parties.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:36:18 +0000

oops

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:19:21 +0000

Um, maybe we’ve gotten so far away it’s got people confused. This is actually the thread for the SA redistribution.

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:59:35 +0000

OK I am happy to get back to the federal election. I am in Perth at the moment and the chattering classes here are chattering about the Peel by-election and what a disaster it is for the state Liberals. The question is, what implications, if any, does it have for the federal election, now probably eight months away? We have all got used to saying “there is no flow-on from state to federal politics” (because if there was, Kim Beazley would now be PM). But just how hopeless and demoralised can the state Liberal branches get before this starts to flow through into their federal campaigning? Can Howard really carry the election all by himself with no help at all from his very badly broken party machine?

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:39:58 +0000

Electoral systems don’t just change the number of seats each party ends up with, they actually change how people vote. Clearly the US system is particularly bad for the Greens, while in Australia there is no strong disincentive against voting for the Greens (because of preferences) but no strong incentive either (since we won’t win in most electorates).

I’m sure that the elements of the Left Party who were previously part of the SPD before they split and joined with the PDS would not have done so in a two-party system. The Greens would still have existed but would not have been as strong (certainly wouldn’t have had a seat in government, maybe not even in Parliament).

And when you look at the reason why the SPD went into government with the CDU/CSU is not because the left overall lost ground. It’s because they couldn’t work with each other. There was a clear majority for the broad left. But most cases of grand coalitions come to be because there is a third party with substantial strength but is in such a position that neither major party can work with them (ie. the German Left Party, the Austrian Freedom Party).

And it’s certainly true that there would generally be less political parties. In fact, any system other than the pure PR of Israel would result in less parties than in Israel. As much as I support PR, I acknowledge that the Israeli system is insane. There should still be some measure of local representation, be it through German MMP (we’re a federation, so it’s more applicable than NZ MMP) or Tasmanian STV.

PS. Maybe we need an idle speculation thread for “nerdy psephological European what-if questions”? :-p

By: Peter Mitchell

Peter Mitchell — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:47:37 +0000

But would the SDP, PDS and GRN have preferenced each other, anf how tight would those preferences have been?

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:26:09 +0000

At the risk of *totally* derailing this thread into ‘idle speculation about historical Eurpoean election outcomes held under alternate electoral systems’ I’m interested in how you reached that conclusion. If it is the case, as you contend, that Germans know that the Party List vote is the one that ‘really counts’, those results don’t seem to support your guess either. SDP + PDS + GRN = 51%, with a net swing of -0.1%

And I know single-member isn’t the same as first past the post, but Teiresias84’s suggestion was the only way I could see to make sense of your claim that the CDU would have won a narrow victory. Constituency vote SDP + PDS +GRN = 51.8%, again with a net swing of -0.1%.

All figures from Wikipedia (In case anyone hadn’t guessed :^) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election_2005

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:56:43 +0000

I don’t claim to know what voters in PR countries would do if those countries changed to single-member seats (which is not the same as first-past-the-post, by the way: I am in favour of single-member seats and preferential voting). But I’m prepared to bet that the Knesset, for example, would look rather different – much more conducive to strong and stable government, and much less beholden to fringe parties.

My guess (a reasonably well-informed one) is that the CDU-CSU would have won the German elections comfortably if the Australian system were used. Under the current system, voters know that it doesn’t really matter who wins their local Bundestag seat, because it is their 2nd vote (for the party list) that really counts. If the German election used the Australian system, voters would know that if they wanted to put Schroeder out (as I think they did), they would have to vote against their sitting SPD local member, and therefore would have done so in greater numbers.

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:14:05 +0000

Ah, I see. It didn’t occur to me that Adam was also advocating first past the post. Takes all sorts, I suppose ;^)

Still a very long bow, though. Would people vote the same way of they didn’t have the Party List vote? About 1 in 8 people who vote for a major party in the constituency choose a minor party on the list. I don;t know what they’d do, and neither does Adam.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:30:20 +0000

Agree with Ben R. If for only this reason, it may be useful as a general rule to have an odd number of seats in government forming chambers.