4 ms·

I'm not familiar with Ireland's system - I should read a history some time. FPP is a mess - I agree. But PR is the wrong response to it. My response to it woul

by cturner 13y ago

I'm not familiar with Ireland's system - I should read a history some time. FPP is a mess - I agree. But PR is the wrong response to it. My response to it would be to pick one of the preference options from my earlier post - problem solved. In the UK the Liberal Democrats are a party who have less seats than you'd expect from the strength of your support, and they'd perform far better with optional or compulsory preferences. > I was suprised to find out that in the UK it's > uncommon for candidates to put posters on > lampposts for elections. [tongue in cheek] This is the first strong argument I've ever seen in favour of FPP. Your bit about coalitions is a strong point I hadn't considered when I wrote my post. In some European countries this has a strong tradition (netherlands, somewhat Germany). Particularly in those European countries where you can have public policy that just doesn't work anywhere else (Scandies, Switzerland). > What experiences are you basing your claims about > the negatives of PR on? There's no particular strong influence, lots of small stuff. I think PR is one of those things that's obvious to like, except when you start looking at it and realising how tentacled it is. We are often motivated by our fears, and I suppose my reaction to PR is generated by a combination of things I think to be undesirable: I don't think it's a good thing to have political debate defined by political extremes flinging mud at each other, and PR tends towards that. And I don't like the constant trend towards politics being run by a distinct, professional political class. PR plays right into that. I'd much rather have weak parties and lowly-paid politicians who get into it after they've had a career doing something else. Single-member electorates with preferences are a straightforward and simple mechanism for getting mainstream members of parliament who are incentivised to work together for everyone. In most cases. It wouldn't be very good in a region like Belgium or Northern Ireland which is polarised along a distinct cultural line. PR and smaller parties may be a good way to shake up those situations.

afterburner 13y ago
"Your bit about coalitions is a strong point I hadn't considered when I wrote my post." That kind of points to you're not really appreciating was politics is actually like in a proportional representation system. It also explains why you think it would be more divisive; parties would need to cooperate in a PR system in order to pass legislation, that's less divisive. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation, borne out of first past the post. Having two bitterly opposed camps for decades or centuries causes polarization, not moderation. Your point about seats not being safe is odd. US Congress incumbency rates are over 90%.
- cturner 13y ago
  I should have wored the safe seats thing more effectively, but I stand by the point. When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. The game-theory around this is fairly clear-cut: you need to be careful not to be a pain in the ass in most single-member electorates, whereas in PR it is often an advantage. Frequently in PR your main competition is for party selection rather than election. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation The US lower house is a poor example of single-member electorates: * gerrymandering in places * FPTP system rather than preferential. * non-compulsory voting The good examples of non-PR are some of the Australian lower-house systems - rare examples of compulsory voting. This means members need to be extra-careful about not pissing people off, even people who generally don't pay much attention to politics. Contrast this to the culture in FPP systems like the US or UK where you need to "get the base out" on voting day. Within that you can go shopping for the preferential system you're looking for (e.g. AV - Victoria, optional - NSW, compulsory - federal) Like the US, Australian electorates tend to be retained. But the political culture discourages divisive behaviour by members who aren't in safe seats. And it's fairly common that when there is a rabble-raiser member, an independent will emerge and turf them out at the next election. The preferential system enables that.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    > When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to cater to a plurality of the voters in your district. You very specifically do not and should not "govern for all". Out of a U.S. population of 313 million, you should govern for a group of perhaps 50,000 (less, really) people in your district - the only ones capable of voting you out of office. The U.S. has a huge number of extraordinarily radical and pain-in-the-ass representatives - over a quarter of the U.S. House is currently trying to force the country to default on its debts, because those are the views of the pertinent slice of their individual electorates. You seem basically to be upset at the idea that any politician might exist with any sort of radical-to-you views. You seem to prefer stultifying politics, where a few rich white men meet together over brandy and decide what's going to happen, and everyone follows along nicely. That preference is not shared by everyone, or even most people. PR allows views with wide but shallow representation to get represented in government, and that's considered a good thing by most people.
rmc 13y ago
[tongue in cheek] This is the first strong argument I've ever seen in favour of FPP. My point with the posters-on-lampposts is that that it shows that candidates have to fight for thier seats. 'safe seats in Ireland' aren't as safe as 'safe seats in UK'. Which is good thing for democracy! I don't think it's a good thing to have political debate defined by political extremes flinging mud at each other, and PR tends towards that. And I don't like the constant trend towards politics being run by a distinct, professional political class. PR plays right into that. Counter-example: The UK. It has FPTP, and it has all those things! It has professional political class! It has politicans who sling mud. (Ireland, with PR, also has a professional political class, and mudslinging politicans BTW. Neither PR nor FPTP solve that).

by cturner 13y ago

afterburner 13y ago

"Your bit about coalitions is a strong point I hadn't considered when I wrote my post." That kind of points to you're not really appreciating was politics is actually like in a proportional representation system. It also explains why you think it would be more divisive; parties would need to cooperate in a PR system in order to pass legislation, that's less divisive. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation, borne out of first past the post. Having two bitterly opposed camps for decades or centuries causes polarization, not moderation. Your point about seats not being safe is odd. US Congress incumbency rates are over 90%.

cturner 13y ago
I should have wored the safe seats thing more effectively, but I stand by the point. When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. The game-theory around this is fairly clear-cut: you need to be careful not to be a pain in the ass in most single-member electorates, whereas in PR it is often an advantage. Frequently in PR your main competition is for party selection rather than election. And the US seems a great example of an incredibly divisive situation The US lower house is a poor example of single-member electorates: * gerrymandering in places * FPTP system rather than preferential. * non-compulsory voting The good examples of non-PR are some of the Australian lower-house systems - rare examples of compulsory voting. This means members need to be extra-careful about not pissing people off, even people who generally don't pay much attention to politics. Contrast this to the culture in FPP systems like the US or UK where you need to "get the base out" on voting day. Within that you can go shopping for the preferential system you're looking for (e.g. AV - Victoria, optional - NSW, compulsory - federal) Like the US, Australian electorates tend to be retained. But the political culture discourages divisive behaviour by members who aren't in safe seats. And it's fairly common that when there is a rabble-raiser member, an independent will emerge and turf them out at the next election. The preferential system enables that.
- jellicle 13y ago
  > When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to cater to a plurality of the voters in your district. You very specifically do not and should not "govern for all". Out of a U.S. population of 313 million, you should govern for a group of perhaps 50,000 (less, really) people in your district - the only ones capable of voting you out of office. The U.S. has a huge number of extraordinarily radical and pain-in-the-ass representatives - over a quarter of the U.S. House is currently trying to force the country to default on its debts, because those are the views of the pertinent slice of their individual electorates. You seem basically to be upset at the idea that any politician might exist with any sort of radical-to-you views. You seem to prefer stultifying politics, where a few rich white men meet together over brandy and decide what's going to happen, and everyone follows along nicely. That preference is not shared by everyone, or even most people. PR allows views with wide but shallow representation to get represented in government, and that's considered a good thing by most people.

rmc 13y ago

[tongue in cheek] This is the first strong argument I've ever seen in favour of FPP. My point with the posters-on-lampposts is that that it shows that candidates have to fight for thier seats. 'safe seats in Ireland' aren't as safe as 'safe seats in UK'. Which is good thing for democracy! I don't think it's a good thing to have political debate defined by political extremes flinging mud at each other, and PR tends towards that. And I don't like the constant trend towards politics being run by a distinct, professional political class. PR plays right into that. Counter-example: The UK. It has FPTP, and it has all those things! It has professional political class! It has politicans who sling mud. (Ireland, with PR, also has a professional political class, and mudslinging politicans BTW. Neither PR nor FPTP solve that).