Greece 2012

[Californian Tony]

Proportional representation with a majority bonus combines the worst features of PR (unelected legislators) with the worst features of FPTP (legislature unrepresentative of popular vote).

Gosh, how many times will I have to repeat that ?

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

And besides that, PR with a small majority bonus is still way more representative of popular vote than any form of constituency-based system.

[Sibboleth]

And besides that, PR with a small majority bonus is still way more representative of popular vote than any form of constituency-based system.

But a system based on single member constituencies is not supposed to be representative of the overall popular vote.

[Californian Tony]

And besides that, PR with a small majority bonus is still way more representative of popular vote than any form of constituency-based system.

But a system based on single member constituencies is not supposed to be representative of the overall popular vote.

Yes, I've heard people who consider it's more important to represent "the country's diversity" and to have MPs closely tied to a small community. Besides the fact FPP rarely actually achieve that (because that requires 1-a very large number of seats 2-that MPs are actually freeminded and not party hacks ; I don't know any country where those two criteria are met, and most don't meet either of them), I personally don't think it's important at all.

[Sibboleth]

Yes, I've heard people who consider it's more important to represent "the country's diversity" and to have MPs closely tied to a small community. Besides the fact FPP rarely actually achieve that (because that requires 1-a very large number of seats 2-that MPs are actually freeminded and not party hacks ; I don't know any country where those two criteria are met, and most don't meet either of them), I personally don't think it's important at all.

The actual problem is that constituencies are rarely drawn with that kind of thing in mind. And that, even when they are, not every constituency is a stronghold for party x, party y, or whoever. And that, even in strongholds, there are always people who hate the dominant party. And so on.

[Californian Tony]

Yes, I've heard people who consider it's more important to represent "the country's diversity" and to have MPs closely tied to a small community. Besides the fact FPP rarely actually achieve that (because that requires 1-a very large number of seats 2-that MPs are actually freeminded and not party hacks ; I don't know any country where those two criteria are met, and most don't meet either of them), I personally don't think it's important at all.

The actual problem is that constituencies are rarely drawn with that kind of thing in mind. And that, even when they are, not every constituency is a stronghold for party x, party y, or whoever. And that, even in strongholds, there are always people who hate the dominant party. And so on.

You're right, this is certainly the biggest issue. Further reason why, even in the only logic that would make FPP legitimate, it's still ineffective.

[Sibboleth]

You're right, this is certainly the biggest issue. Further reason why, even in the only logic that would make FPP legitimate, it's still ineffective.

Well, no electoral system is exactly effective, at least not all the time, at least not always in practice. But rigged PR systems are just silly.

[Californian Tony]

You're right, this is certainly the biggest issue. Further reason why, even in the only logic that would make FPP legitimate, it's still ineffective.

Well, no electoral system is exactly effective, at least not all the time, at least not always in practice. But rigged PR systems are just silly.

Why so ? I hear this so often but I've never heard a convincing argument of what's so wrong with majority-bonus PR.

Consider this system : national PR, 10% majority bonus, 4% electoral threshold. That means that the assembly's composition will be, in the worst case, similar to the PV at around 80%. That also means the winning party needs around 40% of the popular vote to win a majority. The system is reasonably fair, and makes electoral majorities far easier (coalitions might still be the rule, but we'd avoid deadlocked parliaments). If you want popularly elected MPs, just make the attribution of seats to people (not the repartition to parties) based on multi-members constituencies and use preferential voting. Problem solved.

How can this system be considered worse than any kind of consituency-based system ?

[Sibboleth]

Why so ? I hear this so often but I've never heard a convincing argument of what's so wrong with majority-bonus PR

Because it is an attempt to have your cake and eat it. If you accept the principle of proportionality, then you also have to accept (as a direct consequence) that traditional majoritarianism is less than entirely ideal. It's the sort of 'solution' to the 'problems' caused by proportional systems that could only ever be beloved by the political elite (however defined).

[Californian Tony]

Why so ? I hear this so often but I've never heard a convincing argument of what's so wrong with majority-bonus PR

Because it is an attempt to have your cake and eat it. If you accept the principle of proportionality, then you also have to accept (as a direct consequence) that traditional majoritarianism is less than entirely ideal. It's the sort of 'solution' to the 'problems' caused by proportional systems that could only ever be beloved by the political elite (however defined).

I really don't get it. What's wrong with having the cake and eating it, if we actually can ? Majority bonus PR is infinitely more representative than any constituency-based system, and avoids most of its shortcomings. I don't know why we should see things in black or white (either a perfectly fair system which causes instability, or an utterly unfair system which ensures strong majorities) instead of looking for pragmatic solutions which take into account both issues ?

Of course, it's not my favorite system. I support full PR in countries that have prove able to have a stable political system with it (namely, the scandinavians or Germany). But sometimes full PR is a disaster (say, 4th Republic France, Weimar Germany, etc...) and in such case I prefer to correct it with majority bonuses rather than swtching to a really unfair system like FPP.

[republicanism]

I really don't get it. What's wrong with having the cake and eating it, if we actually can ? Majority bonus PR is infinitely more representative than any constituency-based system, and avoids most of its shortcomings.

But in a constituency-based system, every member of parliament can rely on a personal vote. He is supported by more people in his constituency than anyone else. That is a great thing if you ask me. The single MP is more independent in his voting, and, at least theoretically: No one is really save.
Tony Blair could have lost his super-safe constituency in Newcastle (right?, somewhere in Durham I think), if only a few thousand people voted another way around as they did. That is the charme of FPTP: No one is really save.

On the other hand, Schröder, Müntefering, Steinmeier and Steinbrück would have been elected in the Bundestag even if the SPD would have been down to 5,1% in 2009. No voter could have done anything to avoid that.

And majority bonus PR combines the non-proportionality of FPTP and the ultimate power of party bosses of list-PF.

[Californian Tony]

Now, you're really pissing me off.

Gosh, how many times will I have to repeat that ?

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

[Vasall des Midas]

More seriously, the represent-a-community thing is why the idea doesn't seem as offensive in local elections (for smaller municipalities) as it does in federal parliaments.

And besides, a threshold to representation is not really all that different from a plurality bonus.

[RodPresident]

Draft Arianna Huffington to run to be Greek PM...

[Χahar]

Open-list PR isn't nearly the same as single-member districts when it comes to members having a personal mandate. I've never heard of a person losing his seat because of open-list PR; indeed, the only example that I can think of offhand where it made a difference was in southern Italy in the good old days, when DC voters would also check the name of the local boss.

[Iannis]

I really don't get it. What's wrong with having the cake and eating it, if we actually can ? Majority bonus PR is infinitely more representative than any constituency-based system, and avoids most of its shortcomings.

But in a constituency-based system, every member of parliament can rely on a personal vote. He is supported by more people in his constituency than anyone else. That is a great thing if you ask me. The single MP is more independent in his voting, and, at least theoretically: No one is really save.
Tony Blair could have lost his super-safe constituency in Newcastle (right?, somewhere in Durham I think), if only a few thousand people voted another way around as they did. That is the charme of FPTP: No one is really save.

On the other hand, Schröder, Müntefering, Steinmeier and Steinbrück would have been elected in the Bundestag even if the SPD would have been down to 5,1% in 2009. No voter could have done anything to avoid that.

And majority bonus PR combines the non-proportionality of FPTP and the ultimate power of party bosses of list-PF.

Quite the opposite, assuming that strongholds exist, a party leader can be elected even if his party gets 0,5% if in his constituency he's strong (a boss), but ignored in 99% of the country, with FPTP. But we know that everywhere people vote according to a national sentiment, also in Britain where the losses or gains are quite widespread regardless the qualities of local MPs. Indeed, I don't think thay in 1997 all tory MPs had become so hated from their local voters, the were just voting against tory as a national party. so it's right that if a national party is over 5% its leaders have to be in parliament, because nationally that party exists with some force.
And if you add the preferential vote, it's even better.

[Vasall des Midas]

Elections postponed to april in the hope that the government can maybe actually agree on anything for the next two months at any rate.

[Ethelberth]

In Finnish open-list PR the important people always get unelected even if party share remains same.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Elections postponed to april in the hope that the government can maybe actually agree on anything for the next two months at any rate.

Democracy + dealing with controversial but important sh*t = not work properly.

[You kip if you want to...]

Elections postponed to april in the hope that the government can maybe actually agree on anything for the next two months at any rate.

Democracy + dealing with controversial but important sh*t = not work properly.

(Democracy/Theocracy) + dealing with controversial but important sh*t = not work properly.

Fixed.

[Hashemite]

Number of polls now showing the PASOK in third or worst place behind the Commies or other leftie parties. Also, LAOS seems to be crashing and burning a bit.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Number of polls now showing the PASOK in third or worst place behind the Commies or other leftie parties. Also, LAOS seems to be crashing and burning a bit.

Source?

Don't doubting it but you would like to see it. Are the Commies in second then?

[Californian Tony]

Have the elections already been scheduled ? And in this case, when will they be held ?

[RodPresident]

LAOS made the dumbest thing to a anti-establishment party, join government and worse than join government is to join a puppet austherity government. They're cleggized.

[Јas]

Number of polls now showing the PASOK in third or worst place behind the Commies or other leftie parties. Also, LAOS seems to be crashing and burning a bit.

Source?

Don't doubting it but you would like to see it. Are the Commies in second then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Greek_legislative_election#Opinion_polls

[Vasall des Midas]

PASOK 7.0%    ND 18.6%    KKE 8.7%    LAOS 4.3%    SYRIZA 8.2%    DIMAR 7.5%    Greens 3.6%    XA 1.7% (a new nazi party, apparently?)   other / undecided 40.4%

Oh wow. Oh lol.