You see why this blog doesn't work? I write something good about a topic I know well, and it's a 800 word wall of text on electoral reform. In fact, the entire post is actually 1200 words because I threw in some bonus paragraphs. I can easily write 400 words of rant, and I can write 1000 words of interesting, but I can't write anything short and interesting that I'll be proud of and that people will read. Sigh.
I'm not crazy enough to think that people actually find electoral systems fascinating, but I promised Vlad I'd summarize my term paper in my blog. Unfortunately, my summary is 1/3 the size of my original paper. The term paper actually ends 2/3 of the way through the post, because there are related claims that people make that really bother me, so I wrote about them as well. The post turned out well, since I know quite a bit about the topic and I've written about it before...
In 2005, B.C., the province I now call home, held a referendum on whether the electoral system for choosing provincial legislators should switch from a "First-past-the-post" system to a "single transferable vote" system, BC STV. To pass, the referendum had to have support from 60% of the total population, as well as more than 50% support in 48 of the 79 electoral districts. Although the proposal passed in 77 of 79 districts, it failed the 60% total requirement, with 57% of votes in favor. As the vote was narrowly lost, the referendum will be proposed in the next provincial elections in 2005. I'll be voting in those elections, and I had a term paper to write for poli sci, so I decided I would write about the proposal.
Simplicity, transparency, and representation are the basic properties an electoral system. For Canadians, at least, representation can be either partisan or regional. Some people will demand that representatives vote according to the desires of their constituents, while others will demand that representatives adhere to party politics. This difference can cause problems: in 2006, a Vancouver Member of Parliament (MP) caused considerable controversy when he switched from the Liberal to the Conservative party in order to serve in government, betraying the people that had voted for him as a Liberal candidate, rather than a representative of the district.
The extent of representation is as disputed as its nature. Generally, major-party supporters prefer majority government, which has a clear mandate to rule and can govern efficiently, while small-party supporters would prefer more political representation, so that there parties are better represented in government.
Single-member plurality, the technical term for "first-past-the-post", tends to deliver majorities, even if the majority of the people did not vote for the governing party (called a majority government.) This is because under SMP, the candidate with the most votes wins, and because candidates don't need a majority to win, parties can win the majority of the seats (or every seat, which has happened) without winning the majority of the total votes. Besides making majority government more likely, SMP is also simple and transparent.
Mixed-member plurality elects representatives in two ways. Most representatives are elected directly, just like SMP. The rest are chosen from party lists in order to make the legislature representative. Although the candidates on the party lists are not chosen democratically, people generally prefer the resulting political representation to the democratic penalty. MMP is as simple and transparent as SMP, as the main difference is in representation. However, MMP requires either that seats are added to the legislature, or that districts are redrawn so that there are fewer candidates chosen directly.
The theory behind electoral districts is that members of the legislature will represent the people who chose them. The distance between voters and Cabinet, who are in practice the governors of Canada, is such that strong political parties are necessary to hold Cabinet to account. Party discipline, the powers a party has to ensure its members vote in unison, is necessary for a party to be held accountable to other parties and to the public. Unlike the federal government, the existence of the provincial government is derived from a need for local control over local issues. Therefore, although parties are important structures provincially, political concerns cannot take precedence over local ones.
BC STV was designed as a fair, representative electoral system that could replace the current system without increasing the number of representatives. In an STV system, voters rank candidates in multiple-member districts, and candidates are selected if they reach a certain quota. If no candidate reaches the quota, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to their next choices. If a candidate reaches the quota, their votes are transferred (at a modified value) to their second preferences as well. If you're confused, don't worry: the important aspect is that valid votes are always transferred, and always used in the selection of the candidates. (If you want to understand the mechanism, search for "BC STV animation" and you'll get a good explanation.) Representation is ensured through the transfer of votes, because every vote counts. Multiple member districts allow people to vote along party as well as regional lines. Also, unlike SMP, where certain districts have a plurality of loyal party voters, ensuring that said party will almost always win a "safe seat," larger districts and an emphasis on candidates reduces "safe seats", ensuring that parties cannot be complacent.
STV's advantages at a local level make it optimal for electing provincial governments, while a focus on local issues is unsuitable for the federal government. Whether MMP is better than SMP for selecting federal governments depends on whether you prefer majority governments or coalitions, but judging from the experience of most other countries, MMP is preferable to SMP. MMP provides better political representation, and although I may be biased, as a progressive who supports small parties, I would prefer a more proportional government.
Side-Arguments:
This is outside the scope of my term paper's argument, but I don't view coalition governments as inefficient. Democratic governments rule for the benefit of the people, and therefore should generally follow public opinion. (It takes both elitism and cynicism to believe that policy following public opinion goes against the public good, and as this is a marginal opinion I won't address it in this post.) Public opinion tends to become more progressive as time goes on, and changes in policy tend to lag changes in public opinion. This leads to a sea change at election time, when the governments suddenly snaps in line with public opinion. Coalition governments cannot resist changes in public opinion as effectively as a majority government can, so although both forms follow public opinion, there is less deviation under a coalition. An excellent example is the United States. Its two party system, resulting from SMP, ensures that although there is strong opposition to the war in Iraq, ending the war is essentially impossible until the executive changes.
While I'm at it, I might as well argue against the claim that a powerful executive is necessary to respond to emergencies, and majority governments are therefore also necessary because they lead to a more powerful executive. Canada's executive, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is one of the most powerful in the democratic world because the executive is fused with the legislature, and the Prime Minister has considerable control over their party. In a majority government, Cabinet is held accountable by public opinion, the Judiciary, and independent parliamentary agents, but never* by the legislature. Ensuring that the executive's power over the legislature is not absolute hardly makes it feeble. Besides, as much as I'd love for there to be a full policy debate over responses to crises, I don't recall the executive ever finding it difficult to seize the reins of power when a crisis hits.
*- I try not to use the word "never" lightly. Caucus revolts, where the government's own party rebels against its leader, have occurred in similar parliamentary democracies, but to my knowledge this has never happened in Canada.
In my rant below, I mentioned that I would put effort into the serious issues I care about and develop them fully, if not quite to academic standards. Well, I have a research paper to write for poli sci this month, so I'll be devoting my academic brain to that until it's done, and then in April I have exams, so I won't be writing anything serious until I get to Berlin. I'm currently planning to write a reasonably comprehensive description of Western government.
However, I'll only be starting in a month and a half, so if you desire intelligent commentary on current events I suggest you check out Crooked Timber. It's a blog run by a variety of academics, and I've really been enjoying it. I learn a lot from their insight, especially on subjects I knew very little about, and their posts are often funny, or sarcastic. Go check it out.
I've decided that since I'm no longer going to be writing out my serious thoughts on this blog, I could use this blog to rant. And I do feel like ranting. Hopefully when I read this tomorrow, I won't cringe too much.
As you know, I've decided that my career will lie in chemistry. I think that I will enjoy my work and that it will be of benefit to the world, and that's all I really want from my job. Having a salary that I can live on will be a bonus. But it seems that every week I read or hear about something that makes me want to switch. AIDS and malaria are terrifying problems for the developing world, especially Africa, so maybe I should study medicine- do I really want to study medicine? Developing economies are in a mess, so I should be an economist. Politics is messed up, so I should study political science, or maybe law. Corporations are psychopathic, so I should become a businessman and reform it from within (this will never happen. Fuck business.)
In all honesty, I only want to be a chemist. I've always loved science, and I think chemistry is awesome, so I've never seriously contemplated switching out of chemistry. Instead, I've decided that I will also devote myself to a noble cause. I don't know which noble cause yet, but I think I'll figure it out one day, once I've actually lived in the real world. So I'm fine with where I'm going in life.
Reading about these global issues does make me temporarily pessimistic, and I think that maybe humanity is doomed. But really, I'll always be an optimist, which I rationalize because there's no point to being pessimistic- bad shit will happen, and all you can do is hope for the best. That being said, my optimism isn't so much rational as it is an ingrained behavior, as I never chose to be an optimist, and becoming a pessimist seems as likely as becoming a born-again Christian. In fact, I tend to agree that our personalities are determined by our genes and our environment, so not being an atheist or an optimist seems impossible.
The frightening array of problems that the world isn't really a problem for me, because I'm an eternal optimist with a relatively fixed direction in life, but they do bother me because they make good people indecisive. Based on zero first-hand experience, I've concluded each of the many problems requires many people focused on solving it, so if people are confused by the state of the world, then less people will want to volunteer. And if people don't work to solve all of these problems, then my optimism is just silly, isn't it?
I've figured out why I rarely write in my blog. This epiphany came to me when instead of writing on the topic of socialism and capitalism, I was swearing and typing garbage in frustration. I don't enjoy writing in my blog. I usually enjoy what I've written even though it could use a lot of improvement, but the process is generally difficult and time-consuming. Sometimes, late at night I will find it easy to write, only to have to revise it the next day when I realize how terrible it is. No matter what everyone else thinks of it, I find it terrible, and I have to rewrite it before other people read it and don't bother to reread the good version. During this revision, I usually wish that I hadn't published it in the first place.
In the end, I've usually published a post that I can be proud of. I value my writing because it forces me to clarify and organize my thoughts, which is the painful part of the actual writing process. Generally, at least Isabel and Vlad will read and enjoy it. But the more I write, the more frustrating not being able to write well gets, and the less interested my friends become.
So in future, I'll be rewriting my old posts until I am proud of each, and until each one is an accurate and excellent representation of my beliefs. At that point, I'll publish it online for anyone who cares. I won't be blogging for blogging's sake, I'll be writing for my own benefit.
