Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> but up here in Canada we have a parliament and we're drifting toward a two party system

Actually this is kinda my point:

Canada: Liberal + Conservative = 81.1% (90.5% with Bloc, 97.6% w/ NDP, )

Australia: Liberal + Labor = 84.8% (95.4% with National)

Germany: CDU + SPD = 56% (68% w/ AfD, 79.7% w/FDP, 89.4% w/ Left)

France: REM + LR = 71.8% (79.9% w/ MoDem, 85.4% w/ UAI, 90.8% w/SOC)

I can continue if needed...

These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all). Canada and Australia seem to be the closest to America than the others. (Note that I used house numbers for all because they have larger sample sizes so there's a lower bias in distributions)

So it is pretty clear that IRV is ''not,, the defining feature here that causes multi-party systems, nor weaker coalitions. Though we'd have to get more into game theory about coalitions to talk more accurately and I want to stress that while I believe voting methods is a strong tool to prevent these things it isn't the only necessary tool (it's just the biggest step forward we can make given the current US system).

> (I purposefully avoided the common party names since they have connotations how Americans view politics that are extremely inaccurate).

I think this is fair. As I've argued elsewhere America's two party system is closer to a two coalition system. Which actually Australia is a better example of two coalition domination, IMO, than Canada (though I would say a close runner up).

The difference is that RCV results in the "least worst" candidate winning. They receive the most #1 votes, but unless they achieve an outright majority, if they only have a plurality then they only win by being the most preferred alternative vote by the voters.

So the situation is that the leading parties have to spread their ideological base to incorporate more of the electorate.

In addition, Australia has compulsory registration at 18 and compulsory voting (well, actually compulsory attendance at a voting location, the ballots are all secret).

So the candidates have to appeal most to a plurality of their electorate, and they have to appeal least worse alternative to a majority.

> The difference is that RCV results in the "least worst" candidate winning.

This isn't quite true. IRV actually increases spoilage[0]

[0] https://medium.com/election-science/star-voting-is-simpler-t...

>These 4 countries have 4 different voting systems but what they have in common is a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all).

That is wrong. Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all.

edit: and Canada is FPTP

> Canada is FPTP

Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP...

> Australian lower house seats are single member aka winner takes all.

>> The lower house, the House of Representatives, currently consists of 151 members, each elected using full-preference instant-runoff voting from single-member constituencies known as electoral divisions (and commonly referred to as "electorates" or "seats").[0]

(And the upper house uses STV with proportional representation)

Winner-take-all refers to

>> a legislative body is elected by dividing the jurisdiction into geographic constituencies, each electing exactly one representative. Although this may result in diverse representation due to different political groups making up majorities of different districts, within each district, only one political party or group will be able to elect a candidate[1]

Yes, I am using more of an Ameri-centric usage of the word (since we commonly use it referring to the electoral college and not local elections), but pointing this out isn't exactly a great rebuttal. The "winner-take-all" definition is vague and a given considering the impracticality of implementing a non-winner-take-all system without a significantly larger number of representatives. Consider that in Australia they do not have greater than a 10% variation of electorates. If we give more seats and apply proportionate seating this is functionally equivalent to just dividing the electorate further and using winner-take-all. Thus if we follow this usage, there is no election that would _not_ be winner-take-all (or making our term meaningless). This is not the system we see in America where the phrase winner-take-all is applied to electorates that are nowhere near uniform. But I apologize for the confusion and hope this comment clarifies my more (American) natural usage of the term.

And if this is why you're throwing my comment out the window I think you missed the entire point and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all

>Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP...

FPTP is a winner takes all electoral system. You said Canada had "a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all)".

>Winner-take-all refers to

>>> a legislative body is elected by dividing the jurisdiction into geographic constituencies, each electing exactly one representative. Although this may result in diverse representation due to different political groups making up majorities of different districts, within each district, only one political party or group will be able to elect a candidate[1]

This is exactly what Australia and Canada's lower houses have. And looking it up now, France too.

>considering the impracticality of implementing a non-winner-take-all system without a significantly larger number of representatives

The Australian senate has 76 senators. The Australian house of Reps has 151 members. The Australian senate elected with a non-winner-take-all system. The Australian house of reps is elected via a winner-take-all system.

>If we give more seats and apply proportionate seating this is functionally equivalent to just dividing the electorate further and using winner-take-all.

It is not. To illustrate: imagine a country of 1 million where instead of left-wing and right-wing parties they have left-hand and right-hand parties. So there everyone votes for the right-hand party except for the 10% of people who are left-handed. As handedness is fairly evenly distributed, in a single member electorate system it would be basically impossible for the lefties to take a single seat. So you'd expect the parliament to be 100% right-hand party no matter if it comprised a single member or 10,000. However with a proportional system (e.g. SLV) with electorates of 10 or more you could expect the parliament to roughly reflect the 90/10 split.

We see this in the real world, where places with single member seats (e.g. Canada, France, Australia lower house) have worse parliamentary diversity than those with multi member seats (e.g. Germany, Australia upper house).

>And if this is why you're throwing my comment out the window I think you missed the entire point and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith here.

As you haven't made it very clear at all, what is your point?

> As you haven't made it very clear at all, what is your point?

I think the issue we're having here is that you're focusing on a very narrow part of my argument which I'm saying isn't actually that important. The majority of my argument hasn't actually been addressed. I've historically learned not to argue with those that greatly narrow your argument (as opposed to focusing on one part).

> France: REM + LR = 71.8% (79.9% w/ MoDem, 85.4% w/ UAI, 90.8% w/SOC)

As i explained in great detail elsewhere here, you can't use that out of context. French legislative elections are after presidential ones to send the just elected president a new parliament he(or maybe soon she) can work with. If Macron loses next year, REM will have close to nothing. So, it's more like "president's party gets around a majority". Note that this isn't always the case, and Chirac's second term was with a socialist majority parliament he had to work with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com