Absolutely correct. You missed the over-riding issue arising from party control though. Party control of everything distorts any democratic aspiration because the intra party disputes rule! It also, almost inevitably, leads to corruption across the political spectrum. Current examples include South Africa but in the past have included Germany, Austria & Belgium amongst others.
You end up with another Stormont type set up where lots of people are ‘in charge’ but no one actually gets down to the business of governing - they just veto one another’s proposals which means they can conveniently showboat and come up with outrageously irresponsible proposals knowing they’ll never actually have to land them because someone is always going to conveniently object. It’s a do nothing set up 😳
Thank you for this post. I enjoyed listening to your remarkably in-depth yet succinct summary of the trade-off between PR and FPTP systems. A few thoughts (and I’d be keen to hear what you think about any or all of these):
You quite rightly point out the need to balance efficiency and democracy, but I question FPTP’s “efficiency.” One would have to first define the term efficiency. If one means “governability”, it is true that FPTP grants a government a straightforward majority to enact policies. But it is also true that FPTP does not ensure policy continuity. It is common for, and often expected of, a successor government to overturn many of the previous government’s policies. PR, on the other hand, tends to promote policy continuity, and one wonders if that makes PR systems more “efficient.” A steady hand, one might say, is better than a strong hand. The famous Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart’s study on 36 democracies from 1945 to 2010 concluded that consensus democracies have a superior performance record, particularly in government effectiveness, which is measured across several dimensions: quality of public services; quality of civil service and its independence from political pressure; quality of policy formulation and implementation; credibility of government’s commitment to such policies; regulatory quality; controlling corruption; promoting rule of law; and controlling inflation. The effect of consensus democracies on other metrics such as unemployment, economic growth, budget balance, and economic freedom, is limited, so the superiority of consensus democracies cannot be conclusively established. What is definite, nonetheless, is that “majoritarian democracies are clearly not superior to consensus democracies in providing good governance, managing the economy, and maintaining civil peace.” (Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, 264-273)
The point about smaller parties holding disproportionate power is a serious concern, and this is why I support PR-STV (practiced in Ireland): it combines multi-member districts (to ensure proportionality) with ranked-choice voting. There is no Party List vote; the legislature is wholly composed of constituency MPs. The threshold for election for each constituency MP depends on the size of the district (i.e. the number of MPs representing the constituency). District sizes range from 3 to 5 MPs, with the lowest threshold being 16 and ⅔ percent — much higher than the 5% seen in most European countries. In Ireland, there aren’t any fringe parties with significant “blackmail” power; instead, independent MPs from diverse communities join the governing coalition. The negotiating power of these MPs allows them to win local concessions, such as roads, hospitals, and funding for their constituency, and that is a far more exciting governance model!
Your claim that a party with 5% of the vote share is voted “against” by 95% of the electorate is an interesting take on voter behaviour, and PR-STV largely addresses that conundrum. Under PR-STV, winning candidates either obtain a large number of first-preference votes in a constituency or succeed in attracting a significant number of lower-order preference votes. The voters’ ability to use ranked-choice voting to provide small parcels of support prevents an outcome where a significantly “voted against” candidate wields legislative power.
I wouldn’t say that the “centre’s power over the selection of candidates is hugely greater” under all PR systems. Under certain List PR systems, especially Closed List, it is certainly the case but less so under more “open”, “semi-open”, and “free” party list systems. Crucially, under PR-STV the centre has very little control over the selection of candidates. In fact, due to multi-member districts, multiple candidates from a single party contest in a constituency, thereby increasing intra-party competition and emphasising localised politics. If anything, the centre’s power over the selection of candidates is much greater under FPTP, where it can conveniently funnel candidates into safe seats.
I absolutely agree with you. I have never understood why people fall for the pr nonsense, unless, of course, they support an unelectable minority party.
It is an argument that is difficult to win though. All we can do is point the proponents at the countries that use pr to highlight the failings of consensus government.
Absolutely correct. You missed the over-riding issue arising from party control though. Party control of everything distorts any democratic aspiration because the intra party disputes rule! It also, almost inevitably, leads to corruption across the political spectrum. Current examples include South Africa but in the past have included Germany, Austria & Belgium amongst others.
You end up with another Stormont type set up where lots of people are ‘in charge’ but no one actually gets down to the business of governing - they just veto one another’s proposals which means they can conveniently showboat and come up with outrageously irresponsible proposals knowing they’ll never actually have to land them because someone is always going to conveniently object. It’s a do nothing set up 😳
Thank you for this post. I enjoyed listening to your remarkably in-depth yet succinct summary of the trade-off between PR and FPTP systems. A few thoughts (and I’d be keen to hear what you think about any or all of these):
You quite rightly point out the need to balance efficiency and democracy, but I question FPTP’s “efficiency.” One would have to first define the term efficiency. If one means “governability”, it is true that FPTP grants a government a straightforward majority to enact policies. But it is also true that FPTP does not ensure policy continuity. It is common for, and often expected of, a successor government to overturn many of the previous government’s policies. PR, on the other hand, tends to promote policy continuity, and one wonders if that makes PR systems more “efficient.” A steady hand, one might say, is better than a strong hand. The famous Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart’s study on 36 democracies from 1945 to 2010 concluded that consensus democracies have a superior performance record, particularly in government effectiveness, which is measured across several dimensions: quality of public services; quality of civil service and its independence from political pressure; quality of policy formulation and implementation; credibility of government’s commitment to such policies; regulatory quality; controlling corruption; promoting rule of law; and controlling inflation. The effect of consensus democracies on other metrics such as unemployment, economic growth, budget balance, and economic freedom, is limited, so the superiority of consensus democracies cannot be conclusively established. What is definite, nonetheless, is that “majoritarian democracies are clearly not superior to consensus democracies in providing good governance, managing the economy, and maintaining civil peace.” (Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, 264-273)
The point about smaller parties holding disproportionate power is a serious concern, and this is why I support PR-STV (practiced in Ireland): it combines multi-member districts (to ensure proportionality) with ranked-choice voting. There is no Party List vote; the legislature is wholly composed of constituency MPs. The threshold for election for each constituency MP depends on the size of the district (i.e. the number of MPs representing the constituency). District sizes range from 3 to 5 MPs, with the lowest threshold being 16 and ⅔ percent — much higher than the 5% seen in most European countries. In Ireland, there aren’t any fringe parties with significant “blackmail” power; instead, independent MPs from diverse communities join the governing coalition. The negotiating power of these MPs allows them to win local concessions, such as roads, hospitals, and funding for their constituency, and that is a far more exciting governance model!
Your claim that a party with 5% of the vote share is voted “against” by 95% of the electorate is an interesting take on voter behaviour, and PR-STV largely addresses that conundrum. Under PR-STV, winning candidates either obtain a large number of first-preference votes in a constituency or succeed in attracting a significant number of lower-order preference votes. The voters’ ability to use ranked-choice voting to provide small parcels of support prevents an outcome where a significantly “voted against” candidate wields legislative power.
I wouldn’t say that the “centre’s power over the selection of candidates is hugely greater” under all PR systems. Under certain List PR systems, especially Closed List, it is certainly the case but less so under more “open”, “semi-open”, and “free” party list systems. Crucially, under PR-STV the centre has very little control over the selection of candidates. In fact, due to multi-member districts, multiple candidates from a single party contest in a constituency, thereby increasing intra-party competition and emphasising localised politics. If anything, the centre’s power over the selection of candidates is much greater under FPTP, where it can conveniently funnel candidates into safe seats.
I think there is no perfect system; currently we have a far left government that was elected by only, I believe, 20% of the electorate.
I absolutely agree with you. I have never understood why people fall for the pr nonsense, unless, of course, they support an unelectable minority party.
It is an argument that is difficult to win though. All we can do is point the proponents at the countries that use pr to highlight the failings of consensus government.