19 responses

  1. David Graham
    05/13/2009

    I remember that post from when it was written. It’s as distortive as the rest of the pro-PR lobby’s nonsense.

    What we /have/ is a two party system. Giving us IRV is what will allow other parties to break into the political marketplace, like the Greens. It also assumes that changing the electoral system will not change the political culture, which of course flies in the face of the pro-PR arguments in the first place. Having IRV promotes inter-party cooperation and big-tent politics. PR promotes antagonism, posturing, and small-tent politics, and joyous situations like Belgium’s year without a government.

    The final argument is if you like the idea, go for STV. Which was just defeated.

    IRV is the only viable alternative to SMP. If you’re serious about reform, get behind it.

    • Partisan non-partisan
      05/14/2009

      @David Graham,

      David, again you misrepresent the evidence from comparative research on democratic elections.

      Research shows that IRV basically works like FPTP in terms of its relationship to the party system and electoral/legislative behaviour – ie. little inter-party cooperation, antagonism and posturing (sound familiar Canadian House watchers?).

      Also, by throwing out that stink Belgian red herring, you demonstrate your lack of regard for the facts. Belgium is probably the most linguistically divided country in the world. No serious political commentator would pretend that country could have even survived if its elections had been contested under a single-member winner take all system (this prognosticator thinks they would have all become French or Dutch, with Brussels going to crap).

      And BTW, the American members of Fair Vote that I have talked to have said they are jealous of Canada’s multi-party democracy and our ability to have PR on the political agenda. They only advocate IRV because of the legally entrenched two-party system in most states, but all know that PR-elected legislatures provide manifestly superior governance. They’d probably wish you’d stop using their name to criticise their friends and allies in Canada.

      • Mark
        05/14/2009

        @Partisan non-partisan,
        “Belgium is probably the most linguistically divided country in the world.”

        Guess who’s a close second?

  2. Radical Centrist
    05/13/2009

    Idealistic Pragmatist wrote about why IRV is for the lose.

  3. David Graham
    05/13/2009

    Matt,

    Proportional Representation will never fly in Canada. It has been defeated by the requisite supermajority three times so far. FVC’s ideological bent for PR is so strong that they will never accept the democratic will of the people, something that they purport to be promoting.

    I would much prefer SMP over PR and will fight to the death to keep PR out of this country. If SMP remains the compromise system, it is one that I can live with. If it is not one FVC people can live with, then they will need to come around to IRV. If not, then the status quo will remain.

    That there is no grassroots support for IRV is an incorrect assertion. There is little grassroots support for PR. PR is a deeply partisan, not grassroots, movement. IRV (or full run-off) is already used as the basis for the internal democratic systems of most political parties, as controlled by the grass roots. There are few people other than those who want fringe parties to have vastly disproportionate power who do not believe IRV is a better system.

    We will switch to IRV if and when it becomes the broad consensus/compromise position of the public. By pushing for absurd proportional systems that don’t really work anywhere they are implemented, those who want electoral reform have successfully prevented us from moving to an actual improved system for years to come.

    For that, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

    • Mark
      05/13/2009

      @David Graham, FVC’s ideological bent for PR is so strong that they will never accept the democratic will of the people, something that they purport to be promoting.

      Bingo. You nailed it.

      IRV or preferential balloting is inherently more democratic, encourages community consensus building, and forces political opponents to be respectful to one another. It may not fix all of the ills of our system, but it will fix some. And most importantly, people would get behind it.

  4. Matt Guerin
    05/13/2009

    Most members of FVC are steadfast supporters of proportional representation ONLY. They hate IRV even more than FPTP. Yes they are ideological about it. Continuous defeats might change some of their minds, but more than likely those types would simply give up on the issue as a whole rather than switch to a different system they think is even more regressive than our current one. Those who think the next generation will simply come around and support PR eventually are kidding themselves, I think. It just doesn’t seem to be in the political DNA of Canadians to embrace a PR system.

    There is no organized grassroots movement in favour of IRV. Maybe you should start one? That would be necessary in order to convince anyone in the political class to even touch electoral reform again in the future.

    • Scott Tribe
      05/13/2009

      @Matt Guerin, David might be too busy in the next year for that.. but he can count me in if he does decide to do it :)

  5. David Graham
    05/13/2009

    Matt,

    The fact that FairVote Canada is against IRV is what baffles me. FairVote USA recommends — you guessed it — IRV. I believe if they were serious about worthwhile improvements, they would go for IRV. That they’re not belies their inherent dishonesty with the public they seek to convince.

    I don’t believe FVC _is_ a strong grassroots movement. If it was, all of these referendums would have won a decisive victory. More importantly, as FVC is particularly excellent at defeating itself, if we have a referendum on IRV and FVC opposes it, it is virtually guaranteed to pass.

  6. Matt Guerin
    05/13/2009

    I appreciate your comments, David. Eliminating strategic voting is a worthy result. There is just no impetus now to have any kind of change after 3 crushing electoral reform defeats. Switching to IRV would face steadfast opposition from the considerable grassroots involved with Fair Vote Canada. The political class would see no reason to pursue IRV now because such a move would have little grassroots support and many would argue energy is better spent on more pressing issues. And many in the political class like forcing strategic voting as it benefits their parties.

    I might favour IRV in principle. I also think many in the public would find it far more preferable. I just don’t think it’ll ever get off the ground.

    • Scott Tribe
      05/13/2009

      @Matt Guerin, Hence my prodding to FVC that they should look at these past results and a change in strategical tact as well as more open-mindedness towards things like IRV is needed.

  7. David Graham
    05/13/2009

    Matt,

    The improvement that IRV offers is tangible, but does not cause the discomfort that all forms of PR cause with the Canadian electorate. By and large I find that pro-PR folks are very urban and don’t understand why a country with an average population density of a whopping 3 people per square kilometre might object to being ideologically rather than geographically represented.

    IRV’s improvement is the virtual elimination of strategic voting. The trouble is that people in places like Guelph, where I live, Green supporters vote for the Liberal to prevent the Conservative from winning. Replace the three parties and apply to any riding. With IRV, every voter gets the chance to first-pick who they really want without allowing the person they really don’t want to win.

    My only real problem with SMP is strategic voting. IRV solves it and, to me, that makes it a huge improvement.

  8. Matt Guerin
    05/13/2009

    Sadly I agree that electoral reform is largely a dead issue now in Canada, at least for this generation. The people have voted overwhelmingly to keep our current system now 3 times. One thing for sure is the arguments in favour of proportional representation don’t seem to wash with people. They just don’t want it in any form, it seems to me.

    As for IRV, I do agree with many at Fair Vote Canada that such a change would provide no real improvement to our current system – it would only worsen the flaws of our current system and seal other parties out even more. At least under FPTP, a strong local Green candidate could win theoretically (although we have yet to see it happen.) I do agree that instant run-off is good when electing a President or Leader or other type position in order to ensure majority support. But electing 308 MPs, I’m not sure how it’s better. The people seem to be saying they don’t mind the current system at all. I guess it’s up to us to listen to them and move on.

    Next time the second place party wins a majority government in Quebec or elsewhere, we can always say we gave you ample chance to fix the current system and you rejected it every time. So voters get what they vote for.

  9. seven star
    05/13/2009

    Ontario rejected MMP in 2007 so I find it no surprise that STV didn’t go through out west. Say what you will but people want to maintain the status quo and so we have things like this happen.

  10. Saskboy
    05/13/2009

    comment salvaged from Steve V’s blog:
    The notion that BC is destined to lead the country on electoral reform was perhaps a foolish one. Clearly what they do as a province may have little bearing on what the other 9 provinces choose to do with electoral reform. We’ve simply lost approximately 2 in 11 fights for several years.

  11. Mark
    05/13/2009

    I think instant run-offs, or a preferential ballot system would pass in just about any Canadian jurisdiction if it were proposed. And it probably would not require a referendum to be considered valid and credible. The fundamental problem with STV and particularly with PR is that either of these systems represents a dramatic shift away from geographical/community representation to ideological/partisan representation.

    I don’t believe the current model of FPTP is fair, but I do believe that moving to a run-off or preferential ballot is something that more people would rally behind. It would eliminate the fear of “wasting” votes, and would promote community level consensus on electing a representative.

    I hope electoral reformers take this up next, as I truly believe it is the only reform with a remote chance of acceptance.

  12. Kuri
    05/13/2009

    One thing that stand out to me is that the Pro-STV side did a fairly comprehensive campaign with a big volunteer based, a lawn sign campaign, fundraising to supplement the public money, an office to organize all this and a big effort into “new media” and internet campaigning. The No-STV (or rather, Pro-FPTP) side put virtually all of their money into highly emotional and misleading television ads. And it seems to have worked. This fascinates me one level because it’s completely counterintuitive to everything currently trendy about campaigns: it’s a top-down, low-participation approach; it talks down to people rather than engaging them; and it puts all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. It really makes me wonder if all the Obama-inspired buzz about new volunteerism and bottom-up campaigning and citizen engagement is crap, to be honest. I’m feeling rather Schumpeterian about democracy today.

  13. Radical Centrist
    05/13/2009

    I don’t think dumping citizen assemblies is the answer – i don’t think they’re the problem. I’d dump the requiring of a referendum. No one voted on adopting FPTP way back when or on any other changes made to the voting system (like letting women vote), so why do we need to vote on changing FPTP for something else? Or, if we have to have a referendum, why the need for a super majority (60%)? If individual MPs and MLAs and entire governments can get elected with well below 50% support, why would some form of PR require 60% support overall and in all ridings or whatever the asinine requirements were?

Back to top
mobile desktop