First Past The Post Voting Undermines Democracy

I currently live under the control of a government that i did not vote for, and most Canadians did not want. And yet, this government is able, unless the backbenchers rebel (which they don't, it's Harper's personal cult), to pass whatever laws it wants, including the looming c51, our very own PATRIOT Act. Why am i being ruled by a minority in a democratic country? Simple: the voting system.

In Canada as in the US and other democracies, we carry on the old British tradition of first past the post voting: the candidate with the most number of votes wins. Period. People rarely seem to grasp an obvious consequence of this style of election: if there are more than two candidates, the winner may not have had the majority of his constituents vote for him. Due to party discipline, his ability to advocate for his constituents is limited - he must tow the party line. No matter how anti abortion your constituents may be, you better not advocate their position if you're Liberal, or Prince Justin will excommunicate you from the party. What this means is that the wishes of the majority of the people in that riding are ignored with no recourse. They must now live with their MP voting for bills they never wanted.

What's even WORSE is that if too many of the victorious candidates win without majorities, the ratio of MPs from various parties goes completely out of sync with the popular vote. This also makes it possible for you to end up with a party who has a majority in Parliament, and thus able to pass whatever laws they want, without a majority of the vote. Essentially, a minority rules the majority. This problem is so rampant that both the national government and my provincial government are majorities without the majority vote. King Harper rules like a little dictator with his cult i mean the Conservatives, having only gotten 40% of the vote. In Ontario where i live, the provincial government is under the control of a Liberal majority led by Kathleen Wynne, who like Harper treats her position as a personal power trip and acts like Queen of Ontario. Her party got in with only 37% of the vote, yet she can do whatever she wants.

Again, most Canadians do not want Harper, and most Ontarians do not want Wynne, but our retarded voting system allows them to impose their opinions upon us at will. The Alternative Ballot would fix this, requiring every elected MP to get the majority of the vote. But Canada is far too conservative, simple minded and stuck in its ways for this to ever happen. Out of sheer apathy and 'tradition', people here actually DEFEND this (*)(*)(*)(*)

But i implore those countries with more active and passionate voters to make voting reform a priority. How can we make proper policy, if we can not even enact the policy we want?.

 

"Worst possible system apart from all the others"

First Past The Post certainly has its flaws but then so does pretty much any other voting system you can conceive of. A major part of the problem isn't systematic as such but how we abuse it (and it seems Canada shares similar issues).

If you ask people the simple question "Who are you going to vote for at the next election?", the vast majority will get the answer wrong. They'll name a political party when under our system, we vote for an individual candidate. Most of them are members of political parties but we vote for individuals (which is why if they leave their party, they can remain in their seat).

We as voters have allowed this party dominance to build up and remain and it is that which corrupts the system. If we had a more independent view of "our MP" rather than "our party", they'd have more freedom to support all of their constituents even against the will of their party and it would encourage more independently minded party members and true independent candidates in to the system.

The main problem is that both the major parties and the media live off the national game of party politics so most of those with the kind of influence necessary to push such a shift have no intention of doing so. The leaves it to the little guys and the kooks, which rarely works out well for anything.

 

Even if that were fixed, it still leaves the problem of ending up with MPs most people didnt vote for. I dont see the flaw in a system that requires any elected MP to have over 50% of the vote.

 

Yeah, there is something wrong when you can get a majority with less then 40% of the votes.

 

That's not possible though. If you have three candidates of largely equal popularity, none of them will ever get over 50%. You can have systems like Single Transferable Vote but that's not a major difference in most circumstances and the winner still won't be most voters first choice.

I'm not convinced the solution is changing it from (say) 55% of the population having a government they didn't vote for to (say) 45% of the population being in that situation. MPs and governments are meant to do what is best for 100% of the population regardless (and will actually do what is best for themselves regardless ). A good MP will listen to the everyone on a given issue regardless of whether the majority elected them or not. A dictator could be a good leader and a popularist could be a disaster.

The system of how they get elected isn't all that significant, it's the system of how they govern that's key. The electoral process is obvious a factor in the wider picture but it shouldn't be viewed alone.

 

You're putting faith in MPs to be mouthpieces for their constituents instead of their party. At least in Canada that isnt going to happen. So if we're going to vote based on party, the least we can do is make sure people at least prefer to some greater extent the government that ends up in power and most people prefer them, even if it isnt everyones first choice. I dont buy the argument that "It wont affect the political culture that is the bigger issue, ergo why bother with the transferable ballot?". Unless you think rule by minority isnt a big deal - but ill ttel you now, c51, Harper's Patriot Act, wouldnt pass if we had the transferable vote, which would likely have put the NDP in power. And that would be more in tune with what the majority of Canada wants.

 

No, preferential voting does not solve any of the issues related with democracy. We have STV here in Aus and still get the same average ass politicians.

The problem isn't the system of voting, the problem is the views of the voters.

 

SVT isnt a cure for everything. Its just a remedy for minority rule. Obviously its not going to change political culture.

 

Its benefits are purely rhetorical. It helps you feel better about yourself/the system. Doesn't actually change anything for the better.

 

Yes it does, because it can change which party is in power and thus the legislation that gets passed. There would be no c51 if SVT were here.

 

First Past The Post definately has problems, one of which almost inevitably leading to a two party system. Something that should make fans of third party politics rethink their strategy. The fact is the math is against thriving third parties in a FPP system.

Other electoral options seek to eliminate or minimize this tendancy. But the political will to switch systems in places with established FPP isn't there yet. A more plausible path is understanding the strengths and weaknesses of FPP and seeking political solutions that don't depend on voting per se.

 

No matter the system of voting people will be wanting to change it to better reflect their interests. The government + (the public who wants the major parties to have more power even though they all hate the major parties) is trying to limit the influence of minor parties under STV in the Senate.

Politics is a fool's game. As an individual it's an incredibly ineffective method of getting what you want. You're far better off ignoring the law and getting on with your life. Voting is 30 minutes you'll never get back for quite literally no benefit other than the fun of it.

http://wikisum.com/w/Downs:_An_economic_theory_of_democracy

 

Well then - youve clearly lost faith in humanity i see.

 

Not at all, just voting in the nation state.

 

So youve lost faith in democracy.

 

Democracy is neither an effective means to my ends, nor a valuable end in itself.

 

Not at all. That's one reason I don't see the elements you're focusing on being all that significant. They're symptoms more than causes.

But the idea of voting for a party remains a lie and the policies and proposals candidates stand on aren't the ones that get implemented. If anything a true majority party has more freedom for abuse because they have less to fear at subsequent elections.

In a way I don't. I think governments of coalition or compromise can work better than absolute majorities.

Sorry but I fear your personal political preferences are colouring your views and that you might not be as strident were the minority government one you supported.

 

Im really not umderstanding the reasoning here. Im not talking about coalitions or minority goverments, im talking about false majorities - majority governments that did not receive the majority of the vote. So even though most Canadians didnt want the Conservatives in power, they are because of fptp. And because its a majority, the opposition parties who represent the majority of Canadians cannot stop them. So we are forced to live under laws they passed that we didnt want for 5 years until the next election. I flat out see no reason why this is fair.

And for the record im not a hypocrite, because i hate the NDP. And the liberals. I pretty much hate all the major parties.

- - - Updated - - -

Still going for anarchy eh?

 

In simple terms, it makes little practical difference whether the party in power got in on 45% of the popular vote or 55% of the popular vote. It doesn't even really matter whether that alters the major party that ultimately wins. All the mainstream parties in most Western Democracies are largely interchangeable in general practical terms. They make big headlines about a few policies and principles but the vast majority of what a government does will be exactly the same regardless.

Nobody voted for the Conservative party in Canada, they voted for individual candidates. The Conservative party ended up with more MPs than any other party and so formed the government. Now it probably is the case that the majority of individual voters didn't vote for a Conservative candidate but is there any party whose candidates gains that super majority? Is there any party more than 50% of the population would want in office given a free choice?

Unless there is a true two-party system, I suggest you can only achieve this super majority by twisting the system to manufacture it. It's perfectly possible a system that does this isn't bad (I like STV, just for different reasons) but I think you need to acknowledge that, regardless of the system or process you use to reach the answer of X party forms the government, there is still likely to be a majority of voters (let alone a majority of the population) who say they would prefer it was someone else.

 

I like preferential voting. The most preferred candidate wins.

 

I didnt say they wouldnt, but being able to have your second choice is better than having your last choice yes? And at least a majority would approve to some extent of the government, even if they had a first choice they didnt get

As for not caring because all parties are similar, perhaps in Britain it is different but at least to me, in Canada there is a noticable difference in how each party rules. Tar sands, bombing ISIS, increasing the securiity state, neoliberal trade policy - the NDP certainly wouldnt run the country in such a manner as the Conservatives have.