The Mitterrand gambit

The problem as I see it is that it’s too obviously a way of cooking the Tory goose; electoral reform tends to be popular when it’s advanced in response to obvious electoral oddities thrown up by first-past-the-post (Party A winning an election even though Party B got more votes, etc.) and less so when advanced as a remedy for problems not obviously related to the means of electing legislators (corruption scandals like the present one, gender imbalance, etc.) That’s not to say it’s impossible to sell-but it does mean, I think, that Tory cries of partisan impulses will find a more receptive audience than they might have at other times-1998 being the obvious British counterfactual example. I think that it’s not at all unlikely that the Tories could get a referendum to vote an electoral reform proposal down by tying it to the current government, and I have to think that trying to change the voting rules before the next election without a referendum is a complete non-starter with this government in this state.

None of this is meant to be an argument for or against proportional representation, though I’m not a fan myself. I just think that the political gambit is a little too naked in the current context to work. If Johnson or Miliband become Labour leader, or stay at the top levels of the party, though, you could easily see electoral reform in the next decade, given the right election results post 2010.

True. I was thinking of Britian. Let me extend: Ideas like this are why I’m so glad the U.S. has a written constitution that requires a supermajority for amendment.

(I have no idea how the French amend their constitution, but apparently it isn’t that hard if you can switch to PR for tactical advantage.)

There were plural-member districts for some of Parliamentary history, were there not? It would be less of a wrench to bring PR-ish elements back to British elections than to introduce them from scratch. First-past-the-post is a little less came-down-from-Sinai-with-Moses there I would guess.

I don’t see anything in the US Constitution that would prevent similar moves being in at least some US states. Of course the Federal gov’t couldn’t do anything similar because the Federal gov’t has so little say over elections, even over Federal elections. But if a state legislature wanted to move to PR, I’d have thought it could, though it would vary state-by-state.

In any case, I don’t think the PR move is nearly as bad, from a democratic perspective, as what Tom DeLay did in Texas in the early 2000s, or indeed what both sides have been doing with gerrymandering for 150 years.

A good point. From the perspective of 1986, and with a 15 year scope, it looks like a tremendous victory that I am perhaps too young to really appreciate. From my 2009 perspective, it left France with a lingering far-right problem, a quasi-fascist in the second round, one of France’s most inept politician re-elected with 82% of votes, and nasty anti-immigrants policy used as bait and switch for crass economic populism (with values reversed: everything to the rich and powerful).

@Brian Weatherson

I don’t see anything in the US Constitution that would prevent similar moves being in at least some US states. Of course the Federal gov’t couldn’t do anything similar because the Federal gov’t has so little say over elections, even over Federal elections. But if a state legislature wanted to move to PR, I’d have thought it could, though it would vary state-by-state.

As regards elections to Congress, it is federal law which requires all representatives to be elected from single-member districts. USC Title 2 Chapter 1 § 2c. Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District

I think a State could switch from Plurality to Alternative Vote if so inclined.

Z, What does it tell us that 11 pretty broadly applies, mutatis mutandis, to the US circa 2008 (and thereby avoiding questions of judgment on how much has/will be changed in this new term)?

I don’t think the PR move is nearly as bad, from a democratic perspective, as what Tom DeLay did in Texas in the early 2000s, or indeed what both sides have been doing with gerrymandering for 150 years.

Correct. Our system is not only grossly undemocratic, it not just allows but requires political manipulation of the electoral process. Districts are redrawn every decade, and yet there are no established principles whatsoever — by law or by tradition — as to how to draw them. So the only choices are between boosting the majority party and protecting incumbents. Those aren’t distortions of the system, they are the system.

As I understand it, Australia switched from multimember FPTP in the Senate to the proportional STV back in the 1940s in a similar context. Labor controlled both houses, but it was clear they’d lose the election, so they changed the system in the Senate to give them some ongoing say. This was just with the Senate so it had the very desireable side-effect of changing the Senate from a rubber stamp into a powerful house of review, more like the US Senate it had been modelled on.

The multimember seats in the pre-1949 Australian Senate as well as in England in the past were nothing like proportional representation. Basically you get as many votes as there are seats to fill, and give them to whoever you want. In the case of a strong party system like Australia and Britain (currently) have, many voters would simply vote for the MPs in the party they support. Unless there’s enough tactical voting going on, if there’s two seats up for grabs, 100 voters, and 51 prefer Apples (most in the east) but 49 prefer Bananas (all in the west), then Granny Smith and Pink Lady apples will both get 51 votes but Cavendish and Gros Michel bananas will get 49 votes each. Granny Smith and Pink Lady win, and it’s apples for all.

By contrast, if there had’ve been two single-member seats, dividing the country into east and west, then you would’ve got a more proportional result of one Apple and one Banana. That’s why England got rid of their multi-member seats.

(FWIW, Australia has a written constitution that requires a referendum to change. But I would be surprised if most countries included anything about the voting procedure in the constitution. Certainly no referendum has ever taken place on proportional representation in the Senate in Australia.)

I would be surprised if most countries included anything about the voting procedure in the constitution.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

Article 12.2.3° The voting shall be … on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
Article 16.2.5° The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
Article 18.5. Every election of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be held on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, …

*16.2.5 relates to Dáil elections. Two attempts to amend failed at referendum.
*12.2.3 relates to Presidential elections. Since there’s only one President, it’s hard to see how “proportional representation” can apply. My theory is that De Valera wanted to establish a loophole to allow switching Dáil elections to the Alternative Vote without constitutional amendment.

Arguing for PR in the current UK context strikes me as potentially undermining some of the good arguments for it, and making it deeply unpopular for a long time to come.

The rest of Omar Khan’s comment is very reasonable but this kind of thing really drives me nuts. We can’t support anything unless it’s being done for immaculately disinterested motives, untainted by politics. It’s the most anti-democratic attitude you could have, because the only way democracy actually operates is through politics. Not to mention the most conservative — because in the real world, to do the right deed for the wrong reason not only isn’t the greatest treason, it’s often only way the right deed gets done at all.

I’m feeling pretty anti-big state right now.

Where I come from, prejudice doesn’t trump democracy.

lemuel pitkin,
Just out of curiosity, how would you “democratically” change the rules without doing something “undemocratic” given the current situation and the impossibility of getting the small states to vote against their interests. If you mention anything that sounds like “having the Supreme Court use one part of the Constitution to rule the another part unconstitutional,” I’ll have to become a strict constructionist.

27-

how would you “democratically” change the rules without doing something “undemocratic” given the current situation and the impossibility of getting the small states to vote against their interests.

Well, I’m sure you have a better sense of British public opinion than I do. But I have a strong prior suspicion of backlash arguments in general.

We need to clarify terminology. “Proportional Representation” is an outcome, not a process. The process can take various forms, such as STV. This also explains —

*12.2.3 relates to Presidential elections. Since there’s only one President, it’s hard to see how “proportional representation” can apply.

One still wants the President to get more than 50% when there are more than 2 candidates.

mollymooly, I have no idea what relevance that part of the Irish constitution has to my comment you quote.

My point in 27 is, given that the small states won’t vote their advantage away, there is no way to change the Senate that doesn’t involve doing an end-run around the existing rules. And, if somebody can try to do a run around a rule that fundamental, …

There’s probably a good joke about the impropriety of the American Revolution in there somewhere. “If those boys in Philadelphia think they can try to run around a rule as fundamental as — as — the sovereignty of the Sovereign! — they have another thing coming…”

…I’m going to support going by the dead-letters on the page as a necessary counter-point to letting somebody else decide what is ‘democratic.’

I’d suggest democratic = 1 person, 1 vote. I’m pretty sure this is an uncontroversial definition of the core mechanic underlying democratic rule. Geoghegan has a good (and amusing) discussion of this in Secret Lives of Citizens — the Senate as it has come to be was not at all the Senate as envisioned or intended by them Founders folks.

I would expect that without the Senate, much of the country between the Mississippi and the coastal regions of the west would be gradually starved of resources, followed by population.

I’m interpreting this as a variation on the argument that without the Senate, farmers would be under-represented (for living in sparsely populated regions) and city folk correspondingly over-represented. Except what we have now is that agribusiness is over-represented, and small-farm farmers aren’t benefiting from policy: I’m not sure what it would mean to say they are more fairly represented under the Senate system.

MH – you’re not addressing the disproportionality. California has more population than the 22 smallest states. These have 44 senators. California has 2.

You’re also not getting that i’m asking what democracy requires. Splitting up California would be another way to solve its gross underepresentation in the Senate, not an argument for better budgets or whatever else you have in mind regarding governance. If we were to divide California into equally-sized states and in line with the smallest state (ie Wyoming), we would get 72 Californias, and 142 new Senators. Do you now understand the disproportionality, and the democratic problem?

Also, i dont think your claims are fair. Do you really have so little faith in urban dwellers that they would see no value in farming? Or other rural interests? And do you think that even if the situation gets worse – where California has 100 time the population of Wymoing, or 1000 times, your argument will be that democracy inherently requires 2 senators (and only two senators) for every state till the end of time – because the Constitution says so? Do you think that changing populations and different economic and social times make no impact on designing democratic institutions? I’ll put my cards on the table: if the population of every small state beteween the mississippi and the west coast reduces to 1-2 million, and the big states have 20-50 million, i think big state voting should trump the small states. Dont you? Or is voting power of no interest to you? Or is it that states are more important than individuals?

Note: i’m registered to vote in Maine. Our Senators have a seriously disproportionate amount of power (espeically right now).

I’m confused. Can someone from the UK clarify if there is actually any chance at all PR will be introduced any time soon?

As for the US, the Senate is clearly anti-democratic in the extreme. Taken together with the electoral college and various more subtle ways that skew the representation in the House (two extra seats for states, large up-state prison populations with no vote but counted in the census etc.), those of us in big cities who are not company bosses with direct access have virtually no say in the federal government.

It’s startling that these supposed hardheads couldn’t see a day like this coming. If they’d started on electoral reform back in 2005, say, it would be a done deal by now, and they could be feasting on Tory goose while enjoying the sweet sauce of moral superiority.

MH:

While I think some disproportionality is acceptable to protect rural interests and state cultures, I don’t think a ratio of 70:1 is acceptable. Is your argument that you can’t democratically correct the Senate? I’m not sure that’s true: surely a national referendum would have more legitimacy than a Senate vote. Or are you arguing that a ratio of 70:1 is necessary, and that a lesser ratio would be unjust towards rural states?

I haven’t bothered to look up the national data for Canada, but the largest district population is a mere twice that of the smallest in B.C. That strikes me as reasonable.

I agree about now hijacking the thread further. I don’t think people should move to increase their voting power. Public service announcements aside, your vote is pretty much worthless regardless. Don’t tell the kids. My point is that nobody is bothered enough about this to do anything and anybody who is bothered is probably a politician who expects one of those new seats.

MH’s argument seems to boil down to “I’ve got mine, too bad for you.”

@Felix

mollymooly, I have no idea what relevance that part of the Irish constitution has to my comment you quote.

Your comment was

“I would be surprised if most countries included anything about the voting procedure in the constitution. ”

I was merely showing that at least one country includes something about the voting procedure in the constitution. I don’t claim that’s enough to surprise you, but it did seem a little bit relevant.

@P O’Neill

“Proportional Representation” is an outcome, not a process.
This also explains—
*12.2.3 relates to Presidential elections. Since there’s only one President, it’s hard to see how “proportional representation” can apply.
One still wants the President to get more than 50% when there are more than 2 candidates.

Well, it’s true that proportionality is relative, and hence that winning 100% of the seats (or seat) with 51% of the vote is more proportional than winning 100% with 49% of the vote. But one presumes that a certain minimum degree of proportionality is required for a system to qualify at all as “proportional representation”, and any such threshold is likely to exceed by far that which the Irish Presidential election can tolerate. In the case of the Dáil, the proportionality assured by puny three-seat constituencies is meagre; but describing the Presidential election thus is just plain wrong.

‘MH’s argument seems to boil down to “I’ve got mine, too bad for you.” ‘

Actually, I think it would better be condensed as “Sucks for everybody.” I haven’t voted in a genuinely competitive Congressional election since 1992 or so. That’s hardly uncommon.

#54, Mary Robinson won. But where’s the problem with that? If a majority of voters (including Fine Gael voters) preferred to have Ms Robinson rather than Mr Lenihan as President then democracy is served better than if Mr Lenihan won. That’s why you have an STV. But yes, its a stretch to call it “proportional voting”.

As a general proposition, elections with an STV penalise highly divisive candidates. It makes “mobilising the base” a less effective strategy than it is in FPTP systems. If you have compulsory voting as we in Australia do then divisive tactics are even less effective.

57: and yet, John Howard

There have now been three referenda on variants of PR in Canadian provinces within the last four years; it’s lost every time, though it came very close to the required 60% the first time round in BC. (It did much worse the second time, which was in the last couple of weeks.)

One word against PR: Israel.

It seems to me that, outwith any particular objections to the US Senate’s composition, powers, etc, the main issue is that the US Constitution is extraordinarily difficult to amend, precisely because the process for doing so demands such a high, ‘democratic’ majority across the country. Couple that with a near-religious veneration which is completely alien to the way, for example, the French treat their constitutional texts, and you have a recipe for a country in which constitutional development mainly happens at the whim of five Supreme Court justices. Unintended consequences, anyone?

21: Since there’s only one President, it’s hard to see how “proportional representation” can apply.

You just have to pick a President with the right combination of attributes.

“Down to the waist, I’m a Tory of the most determined description, but my legs
are a couple of confounded Radicals…” – Iolanthe

#60 – exactly, the important thing in elections is more the ability to remove specific individuals as punishment for their past term or that of their party.

Now is the wrong time to introduce PR. There’s too much public anger sloshing around. If there were to be a nonmajority or coalition government after the next FPTP election, then that would be a good time for it.

It’s interesting to see what happened in Scotland following the introduction of PR; it served as an information transfer mechanism. After one election people realised that there were a lot more SNP second votes around than they thought, so it was not a “wasted vote” to vote for them first.

Whatever system is introduced in the UK, it must not have party lists.

Can someone from the UK clarify if there is actually any chance at all PR will be introduced any time soon?

None whatsoever. Not least for the practical reasons put forward by Dave Weedon upthread. But also because too many MPs from the two major parties would find their seats at risk. Even if a desperate government tried to push it through, they would be outvoted by their own back benchers.