3 ms·

I disagree about the consistent distribution in parliaments. I do think that parliamentary governance is, overall, just a better way to elect heads of state -

by munk-a 5y ago

I disagree about the consistent distribution in parliaments. I do think that parliamentary governance is, overall, just a better way to elect heads of state - but up here in Canada we have a parliament and, while the NDP certainly does hold some sway, we're drifting toward a two party system. Surprisingly, it seems most likely that the CPC might collapse and get absorbed into the LPC which then provides conservative opposition to the NDP - but time will tell whether the CPC can recover now that Harper is gone. (I purposefully avoided the common party names since they have connotations how Americans view politics that are extremely inaccurate).

godelski 5y ago
> but up here in Canada we have a parliament and we're drifting toward a two party system Actually this is kinda my point: Canada: Liberal + Conservative = 81.1% (90.5% with Bloc, 97.6% w/ NDP, ) Australia: Liberal + Labor = 84.8% (95.4% with National) Germany: CDU + SPD = 56% (68% w/ AfD, 79.7% w/FDP, 89.4% w/ Left) France: REM + LR = 71.8% (79.9% w/ MoDem, 85.4% w/ UAI, 90.8% w/SOC) I can continue if needed... These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). Canada and Australia seem to be the closest to America than the others. (Note that I used house numbers for all because they have larger sample sizes so there's a lower bias in distributions) So it is pretty clear that IRV is ''not,, the defining feature here that causes multi-party systems, nor weaker coalitions. Though we'd have to get more into game theory about coalitions to talk more accurately and I want to stress that while I believe voting methods is a strong tool to prevent these things it isn't the only necessary tool (it's just the biggest step forward we can make given the current US system). > (I purposefully avoided the common party names since they have connotations how Americans view politics that are extremely inaccurate). I think this is fair. As I've argued elsewhere America's two party system is closer to a two coalition system. Which actually Australia is a better example of two coalition domination, IMO, than Canada (though I would say a close runner up).
- adamjb 5y ago
  >These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). That is wrong. Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all. edit: and Canada is FPTP
  - godelski 5y ago
    > Canada is FPTP Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP... > Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all. >> The lower house, the House of Representatives, currently consists of 151 members, each elected using full-preference instant-runoff voting from single-member constituencies known as electoral divisions (and commonly referred to as "electorates" or "seats").[0] (And the upper house uses STV with proportional representation) Winner-take-all refers to >> a legislative body is elected by dividing the jurisdiction into geographic constituencies, each electing exactly one representative. Although this may result in diverse representation due to different political groups making up majorities of different districts, within each district, only one political party or group will be able to elect a candidate[1] Yes, I am using more of an Ameri-centric usage of the word (since we commonly use it referring to the electoral college and not local elections), but pointing this out isn't exactly a great rebuttal. The "winner-take-all" definition is vague and a given considering the impracticality of implementing a non-winner-take-all system without a significantly larger number of representatives. Consider that in Australia they do not have greater than a 10% variation of electorates. If we give more seats and apply proportionate seating this is functionally equivalent to just dividing the electorate further and using winner-take-all. Thus if we follow this usage, there is no election that would _not_ be winner-take-all (or making our term meaningless). This is not the system we see in America where the phrase winner-take-all is applied to electorates that are nowhere near uniform. But I apologize for the confusion and hope this comment clarifies my more (American) natural usage of the term. And if this is why you're throwing my comment out the window I think you missed the entire point and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all

by munk-a 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

> but up here in Canada we have a parliament and we're drifting toward a two party system Actually this is kinda my point: Canada: Liberal + Conservative = 81.1% (90.5% with Bloc, 97.6% w/ NDP, ) Australia: Liberal + Labor = 84.8% (95.4% with National) Germany: CDU + SPD = 56% (68% w/ AfD, 79.7% w/FDP, 89.4% w/ Left) France: REM + LR = 71.8% (79.9% w/ MoDem, 85.4% w/ UAI, 90.8% w/SOC) I can continue if needed... These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). Canada and Australia seem to be the closest to America than the others. (Note that I used house numbers for all because they have larger sample sizes so there's a lower bias in distributions) So it is pretty clear that IRV is ''not,, the defining feature here that causes multi-party systems, nor weaker coalitions. Though we'd have to get more into game theory about coalitions to talk more accurately and I want to stress that while I believe voting methods is a strong tool to prevent these things it isn't the only necessary tool (it's just the biggest step forward we can make given the current US system). > (I purposefully avoided the common party names since they have connotations how Americans view politics that are extremely inaccurate). I think this is fair. As I've argued elsewhere America's two party system is closer to a two coalition system. Which actually Australia is a better example of two coalition domination, IMO, than Canada (though I would say a close runner up).

adamjb 5y ago
>These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). That is wrong. Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all. edit: and Canada is FPTP
- godelski 5y ago
  > Canada is FPTP Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP... > Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all. >> The lower house, the House of Representatives, currently consists of 151 members, each elected using full-preference instant-runoff voting from single-member constituencies known as electoral divisions (and commonly referred to as "electorates" or "seats").[0] (And the upper house uses STV with proportional representation) Winner-take-all refers to >> a legislative body is elected by dividing the jurisdiction into geographic constituencies, each electing exactly one representative. Although this may result in diverse representation due to different political groups making up majorities of different districts, within each district, only one political party or group will be able to elect a candidate[1] Yes, I am using more of an Ameri-centric usage of the word (since we commonly use it referring to the electoral college and not local elections), but pointing this out isn't exactly a great rebuttal. The "winner-take-all" definition is vague and a given considering the impracticality of implementing a non-winner-take-all system without a significantly larger number of representatives. Consider that in Australia they do not have greater than a 10% variation of electorates. If we give more seats and apply proportionate seating this is functionally equivalent to just dividing the electorate further and using winner-take-all. Thus if we follow this usage, there is no election that would _not_ be winner-take-all (or making our term meaningless). This is not the system we see in America where the phrase winner-take-all is applied to electorates that are nowhere near uniform. But I apologize for the confusion and hope this comment clarifies my more (American) natural usage of the term. And if this is why you're throwing my comment out the window I think you missed the entire point and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all