Voting Systems & Reforms

[AiliailiA]

And more generally, I think everyone is entitled to an opinion on what the best electoral system is. Defining the best is incredibly technical, to be an authority on it one would need deep understanding of the philosophy of rights, the practical philosophy of politics, and the statistical and logical branches of mathematics.

We could all learn something, if we lured such a person into this thread and had the opportunity to ask them questions.

Unless that happens, let's approach the subject in a democratic way. Some of us know more than others, but we're all equal in the ideal voting system. It is in the interests of the more knowledgable, to inform the less knowledgable. It is in the interests of all to learn more. It's in the interests of everyone who believes in democracy, to make it better.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Interestingly for people familiar with the FPTP system. The width of the bars corresponds with the years a certain cabinet remained in office. The 2010 cabinet fell after two years, and the current 2012 cabinet has been in office for two years now (just about). Asn you can see, there were no elections between 1940 and 1945, somehow. Didn't know how that happened.

That is interesting, because FPTP governments rarely fall, if at all. Some heinous shit has to happen in a FPTP system if a cabinet is broken. In a system like described above, there is the possibility of rising disagreements between the ruling parties, leading to a 'cabinet crisis' and eventually a breakdown, followed by new elections once the Prime Minister announced his resignation. This means that, when a government (like Rutte I) loses favour half way through their term, they can get ousted. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I don't know, but it's certainly interesting.

I certainly favour elections to resolve such crises. Give a government three or four years (or perhaps even longer) between elections, to make policy and have the effects play out. But if they are unable to govern in the configuration of parties they chose to form government, then hold another election.

Though cabinet members should still be sacked in some circumstances. They showed promise but turned out to be bad. They had health problems, or some other problem which would excuse them from being a cabinet minister, but still allow them to serve as a regular member. Gross misconduct. Death. Obviously there needs to be some mechanism to replace Cabinet ministers without calling new elections.

I'm guessing the party of a sacked, resigned or deceased Cabinet minister chooses the replacement? That's not considered "Cabinet breaking"?

Interesting question, and luckily for you, this has happened just this month here! The cabinet minister of Safety and Justice, Ivo Opstelten, and a State Secretary, Fred Teeven, resigned after a scandal. They had given wrongful information surrounding a certain high-profile criminal. Not on purpose, but they resigned anyway goven the shady background of the dealings (FYI, a State Secretary, or Staatssecretaris, is a member of the minister's entourage, a lieutenant of sorts). So, Opstelten and Teeven both resigned, leaving two vacant places. In that case, someone becomes acting minister while the Prime Minister and the cabinet try to find someone to take the job. This is not something that would let a cabinet fall, unless the ruling parties cannot decide over a replacement. A minister resigning will generally not result in loss of support among the coalition members, so the coalition can go on governing. So, the governing coalition gets to choose who replaces a certain minister. In this case Ard van deer Steur, a member of the Second Chamber and a former lawyer.

To understand this, you have to know what a coalition exactly is. A coalition is a collaboration of parties deciding they are going to run a country together. This kind of coalition is forged in a 'coalition agreement', in which the coalition parties agree over their planned course for the coming years in office. So, a Labour party and the Liberal party will try and reach the middle ground in their agreement, both needing each other to be a part of the government. The parties included in the coalition will also decide the cabinet positions among themselves, so the cabinet is a patchwork of all kinds of ministers from different parties. As long as this coalition has 51% of the seats in the Second Chamber and the Senate (First Chamber), all is well.

Of course, certain events can shape the relation between parties. Sometimes, they have to decide over matters not covered in the Coalition Agreement. Or a Coalition party senses that their popularity has increased significantly since the last election. If one party retracts their support, a few situations might occur. The coalition can fall, because the nation becomes ungovernable without the support of the Second or First Chamber. In a situation like what happened in the US, with the GOP controlling both the Senate and the House, in the Netherlands, the coalition would have fallen, leading to new elections. Sometimes, governing remains fragile but possible if the opposition is 'kind' enough, but this generally doesn't happen. Losing support in one of the chambers generally foretells doom. But this is alright. We might have to get to the voting booth every two years, but at least out government keeps being active (active or die) and it generally heeds the will of the people. Unpopular lawmaking might give the opposition or the coalition partners ideas of grandeur.

[Seleucas]

Which one?

I just prefer having representatives being allotted on the basis of states (like what is done with senators and representatives in the US), so that local interests are represented and that there can be more decentralization.

Well, a proportional system does not stop you from having local representation, and FPTP does not make that any easier. If anything, FPTP does a shit job of actually representing the views of the citizenry.

I am not sure how one could combine the two; if you can only have a single representative from each district, that rules out having proportional representation. It is an acceptable loss if some votes are 'wasted', so to speak.

[Skappola]

Well, a proportional system does not stop you from having local representation, and FPTP does not make that any easier. If anything, FPTP does a shit job of actually representing the views of the citizenry.

I am not sure how one could combine the two; if you can only have a single representative from each district, that rules out having proportional representation. It is an acceptable loss if some votes are 'wasted', so to speak.

The representatives using proportional representation are still local - just not as local as before.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Well, a proportional system does not stop you from having local representation, and FPTP does not make that any easier. If anything, FPTP does a shit job of actually representing the views of the citizenry.

I am not sure how one could combine the two; if you can only have a single representative from each district, that rules out having proportional representation. It is an acceptable loss if some votes are 'wasted', so to speak.

In the Netherlands, we have two Chambers. The Second and the First. The Second is selected directly from the populace, using a proportional system. The First Chamber, or Senate, has representatives from each of the twelve provinces, elected by the province governments. So, there is a combined system of local and national representation, which allows for local representation and a proportional system.

Anyway, decentralisation has nothing to do with the voting system. A nation can be enormously decentralised and have a proportional system, and a very centralised nation can have a FPTP voting system.

[AiliailiA]

By the way, I didn't vote in the poll. I'm for Mixed Member Proportional, but not for Party List.

I would happily have voted Other, and explained my choice in-thread.

---

I certainly favour elections to resolve such crises. Give a government three or four years (or perhaps even longer) between elections, to make policy and have the effects play out. But if they are unable to govern in the configuration of parties they chose to form government, then hold another election.

Though cabinet members should still be sacked in some circumstances. They showed promise but turned out to be bad. They had health problems, or some other problem which would excuse them from being a cabinet minister, but still allow them to serve as a regular member. Gross misconduct. Death. Obviously there needs to be some mechanism to replace Cabinet ministers without calling new elections.

I'm guessing the party of a sacked, resigned or deceased Cabinet minister chooses the replacement? That's not considered "Cabinet breaking"?

Interesting question, and luckily for you, this has happened just this month here! The cabinet minister of Safety and Justice, Ivo Opstelten, and a State Secretary, Fred Teeven, resigned after a scandal. They had given wrongful information surrounding a certain high-profile criminal. Not on purpose, but they resigned anyway goven the shady background of the dealings (FYI, a State Secretary, or Staatssecretaris, is a member of the minister's entourage, a lieutenant of sorts). So, Opstelten and Teeven both resigned, leaving two vacant places. In that case, someone becomes acting minister while the Prime Minister and the cabinet try to find someone to take the job. This is not something that would let a cabinet fall, unless the ruling parties cannot decide over a replacement. A minister resigning will generally not result in loss of support among the coalition members, so the coalition can go on governing. So, the governing coalition gets to choose who replaces a certain minister. In this case Ard van deer Steur, a member of the Second Chamber and a former lawyer.

To understand this, you have to know what a coalition exactly is. A coalition is a collaboration of parties deciding they are going to run a country together. This kind of coalition is forged in a 'coalition agreement', in which the coalition parties agree over their planned course for the coming years in office.

Sounds good. It's what I called "the configuration of parties to form government". A coalition of parties after the election, who agree at least enough to appoint a Prime Minister.

There would be a period of negotiations after the election I presume? Before the parliament comes into session and formally votes in the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

So, a Labour party and the Liberal party will try and reach the middle ground in their agreement, both needing each other to be a part of the government. The parties included in the coalition will also decide the cabinet positions among themselves, so the cabinet is a patchwork of all kinds of ministers from different parties. As long as this coalition has 51% of the seats in the Second Chamber and the Senate (First Chamber), all is well.

Of course, certain events can shape the relation between parties. Sometimes, they have to decide over matters not covered in the Coalition Agreement.

I am curious: is the Coalition Agreement made public? Is there a publicly declared part of it, but also a secret part of it? And is it a legal requirement that they make public their agreement?

Or a Coalition party senses that their popularity has increased significantly since the last election. If one party retracts their support, a few situations might occur. The coalition can fall, because the nation becomes ungovernable without the support of the Second or First Chamber. In a situation like what happened in the US, with the GOP controlling both the Senate and the House, in the Netherlands, the coalition would have fallen, leading to new elections.

The US, by long experience of the stupid system of two chambers elected differently, each able to block the other (the "balance of powers") has found a way around it. Mandatory spending: permanent bills which do not need approval by both chambers to continue. To kill them or alter them in any way, opponents need agreement in both chambers (with supermajority in the least representational chamber, the Senate). This allows a supermajority in the Senate plus a majority in the House to nail in place their policy, never to be pried away unless opponents of it can muster a majority in the House and supermajority in the Senate. It's an inherently conservative system. The government continues to do what it did before, unless a strong and enduring majority stops it.

Well shit is well fucked-up in the US. Balance of powers screwed to the sticking-point. I'm not asking for you opinion on that, I'm just ranting a bit.

Let's return to your specialty, Netherlands electoral system.

Sometimes, governing remains fragile but possible if the opposition is 'kind' enough, but this generally doesn't happen. Losing support in one of the chambers generally foretells doom. But this is alright. We might have to get to the voting booth every two years, but at least out government keeps being active (active or die) and it generally heeds the will of the people. Unpopular lawmaking might give the opposition or the coalition partners ideas of grandeur.

Well I didn't know you had two chambers. Elected by different methods?

Reading later posts, I see that you have a "senate" of sorts. Maybe I don't like your system so well after all.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

By the way, I didn't vote in the poll. I'm for Mixed Member Proportional, but not for Party List.

I would happily have voted Other, and explained my choice in-thread.

My advice to the OP is: the forum allows you to add a poll, at any time after starting the thread, by editing the Original Post. When you run out steam writing the OP, as you obviously did, don't make a poll in the last two minutes before clicking Submit on your new thread. It's a rather bad poll, but you can't change it now. Next time, take a rest before adding the poll.

Interesting question, and luckily for you, this has happened just this month here! The cabinet minister of Safety and Justice, Ivo Opstelten, and a State Secretary, Fred Teeven, resigned after a scandal. They had given wrongful information surrounding a certain high-profile criminal. Not on purpose, but they resigned anyway goven the shady background of the dealings (FYI, a State Secretary, or Staatssecretaris, is a member of the minister's entourage, a lieutenant of sorts). So, Opstelten and Teeven both resigned, leaving two vacant places. In that case, someone becomes acting minister while the Prime Minister and the cabinet try to find someone to take the job. This is not something that would let a cabinet fall, unless the ruling parties cannot decide over a replacement. A minister resigning will generally not result in loss of support among the coalition members, so the coalition can go on governing. So, the governing coalition gets to choose who replaces a certain minister. In this case Ard van deer Steur, a member of the Second Chamber and a former lawyer.

To understand this, you have to know what a coalition exactly is. A coalition is a collaboration of parties deciding they are going to run a country together. This kind of coalition is forged in a 'coalition agreement', in which the coalition parties agree over their planned course for the coming years in office.

Sounds good. It's what I called "the configuration of parties to form government". A coalition of parties after the election, who agree at least enough to appoint a Prime Minister.

There would be a period of negotiations after the election I presume? Before the parliament comes into session and formally votes in the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

So, a Labour party and the Liberal party will try and reach the middle ground in their agreement, both needing each other to be a part of the government. The parties included in the coalition will also decide the cabinet positions among themselves, so the cabinet is a patchwork of all kinds of ministers from different parties. As long as this coalition has 51% of the seats in the Second Chamber and the Senate (First Chamber), all is well.

Of course, certain events can shape the relation between parties. Sometimes, they have to decide over matters not covered in the Coalition Agreement.

I am curious: is the Coalition Agreement made public? Is there a publicly declared part of it, but also a secret part of it? And is it a legal requirement that they make public their agreement?

Or a Coalition party senses that their popularity has increased significantly since the last election. If one party retracts their support, a few situations might occur. The coalition can fall, because the nation becomes ungovernable without the support of the Second or First Chamber. In a situation like what happened in the US, with the GOP controlling both the Senate and the House, in the Netherlands, the coalition would have fallen, leading to new elections.

The US, by long experience of the stupid system of two chambers elected differently, each able to block the other (the "balance of powers") has found a way around it. Mandatory spending: permanent bills which do not need approval by both chambers to continue. To kill them or alter them in any way, opponents need agreement in both chambers (and of course, the Senate requires 60% to pass such a bill, in a truly weird restriction of the Senate power imposed by the Senate itself). This allows a strong majority in the Senate plus a majority in the House to nail in place their policy, never to be pried away unless opponents of it can muster a majority in the House and supermajority in the Senate. It's an inherently conservative system. The government continues to do what it did before, unless a strong and enduring majority stops it.

Well shit is well fucked-up in the US. Balance of powers baloney. I'm not asking for you opinion on that, I'm just ranting a bit.

Let's return to your specialty, Netherlands electoral system.

Sometimes, governing remains fragile but possible if the opposition is 'kind' enough, but this generally doesn't happen. Losing support in one of the chambers generally foretells doom. But this is alright. We might have to get to the voting booth every two years, but at least out government keeps being active (active or die) and it generally heeds the will of the people. Unpopular lawmaking might give the opposition or the coalition partners ideas of grandeur.

Well I didn't know you had two chambers. Elected by different methods?

I voted today

Around lunchtime, I went to the voting station at my local primary school. I politely declined the "how to vote" leaflets, waited in a queue for two minutes, gave my name to the registrar and got my House and Senate paper ballots. Filled them out with the pen provided, and inserted my ballots into the big cardboard boxes. Got back on my bike and continued up to the shops. The whole business of voting took under ten minutes, more like five. It was a pleasure.

Let's go over these one by one, shall we? We begin with the Formation.

After the last government resigns (either because their term is over or because of aforementioned political troubles) they don't immediately pack their bags and leave. They become what is known as the 'Deminssionairy Cabinet', a caretaker cabinet to take care of the country while the elections are being prepared, and a new government is being formed. They have no legislative ability any more, they are just there to make sure officials get paid, and that the military doesn't run itself aground. So, while this DC is active, they cannot pass laws. Now, then we get an election, which is pretty much the same as you described it. We take our mail-sent voter registration card (every citizen gets one sent to his home), give it to the attendants, we get a voting card (that's not my hand), and we pick the candidate we like the most. Every column stands for a party, and listed from top to bottom are the candidates for that party. The 'lijstrekker', the party top man, always stands on top. We cast the ballot in a large box, and we are done. Go home, done in five to ten minutes, dinner hasn't even gone cold.

Then, the interesting bits start. The votes are counted, across the nation, and the percentage of votes for one party compared to the total number of cast votes is calculated. You get figures close to what you posted earlier, the biggest party getting between 20 and 30% of the vote, generally. The party with the biggest number of votes gets the right to initiate the formation process. A 'formator' is appointed, who heads the talks between parties, and eventually, the parties combine in a coalition as represented by a coalition agreement. This coalition agreement is presented to the monarch (king Willem-Alexander at the moment), who chooses whether to adopt the new cabinet or no. He essentially has no choice, and the king has no power to deny a plan presented to him, but he still officially picks the ministers and the Prime Minister. If this agreement has 51% of the total votes, they are the new government, as appointed by His Majesty. The demissionary cabinet is dissolved and the new cabinet comes to power. Huzzah! The Second Chamber doesn't even have to vote on it. The king accepts it, sealing the deal. But, as you can understand, there is no real difference. The new cabinet has at least 51% of the seats in the Chamber, so there is no use voting on it.

So, in short: yes, there is a short formation period, during which the last cabinet keeps order.

As for the Coalition Agreement, I don't know the legal specific exactly. The constitution does not mention it specifically. But it is the rule that the agreement is also made public for a large part. After all, the people deserve to know who their government is, and what their plans are. They give it a fancy name, usually a colour, next to the official name, which is the name of the Prime Minister. So, currently, I am governed by the cabinet Rutte II (the second cabinet headed by Prime Minister Rutte) in a Purple configuration; the collaboration of red and blue parties. So, yeah, this agreement is made public. Of course, we're still talking politics, and a lot happens behind closed doors, but the broad lines are always published. Not doing so would be... Odd. Suspicious. The opposition would not stand for it.

As for the different Chambers, yes indeed! We have two. Like I said, the Second and First Chambers of the States-General, in their official terms. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal and Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Their combined name is the States-General, or Staten-Generaal. Their roles are different, too. The Second Chamber is the most important of the two. They have the right of initiative (they can introduce their own bills and vote on them) and they have the right to amend a proposal made by the cabinet. They also have the first vote. A cabinet, when making a proposal, gives it to the Second Chamber, which votes on the matter. If they pass it, be it with amendments or no, they give it to the First Chamber, the Senate. They have an entirely different approach. These people don't have the right to amend, they can't put in their own bills. Their role is purely as a control. They are wise men and women, chosen not directly by the people but by the governments of the provinces. Their job is to look at the legality, the implications, the constitution, and the desirability of a certain bill. Being a senator is a part-time job, too. People have their regular day job, and they are senators on the side. So, the Second Chamber is a more politically-minded body, chosen by the proportional system, while the Senate is more legally-minded, chosen by the province governments. We just voted for the province governments, by the way, which also meant electing a new senate.

Yeah, voting. It feels great. I always get a strange feeling after I cast my ballot. Wow. I just voted. I live in a nation in which the people decide who runs the country. That always gives me the shivers.

I just read your last post, and you take offence by our senate. This senate is entirely different from the US senate, though, and looks nothing at all like the transatlantic counterpart. Our senate is less politically minded, they are the more technocratic part of our government.

[Vozergovnia]

I like single-transferable vote and proportional representation; majority judgement is too extreme for my taste.

[Greed and Death]

Lets use a variant of the Missouri plan for governors and legislatures.

[Greater-London]

FPTP. It means voting can be as much about the candidate as the party and bad politicians can be kicked out of politics more easily. I hate list systems with PR and other election methods as the public are then at the mercy of whoever our magnanimous leaders decide they want to put at the top of the list.

I agree that party lists are a supremely bad way of deciding who gets elected. I also appreciate that FPTP is very good at getting rid of bad governments and bad politicians. The problem with FPTP that can't be ignored is the fact that is can lead to some really ridiculous results; I mean look too May where UKIP will poll around 15% and get 1 - 3 seats, whilst the SNP will poll nationally around 5% and that's going to translate into about 50.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

FPTP. It means voting can be as much about the candidate as the party and bad politicians can be kicked out of politics more easily. I hate list systems with PR and other election methods as the public are then at the mercy of whoever our magnanimous leaders decide they want to put at the top of the list.

I agree that party lists are a supremely bad way of deciding who gets elected. I also appreciate that FPTP is very good at getting rid of bad governments and bad politicians. The problem with FPTP that can't be ignored is the fact that is can lead to some really ridiculous results; I mean look too May where UKIP will poll around 15% and get 1 - 3 seats, whilst the SNP will poll nationally around 5% and that's going to translate into about 50.

How exactly does FPTP get rid of bad politicians and bad governments exactly?

[Greater-London]

How exactly does FPTP get rid of bad politicians and bad governments exactly?

Well it does compared to proportional systems. True you can get a majority government under FPTP with around the 37% - 38% mark but if its bellow that your out the running. If you have PR systems you end up with governments hanging in by clumping together rainbow coalitions. I mean if we had PR in the UK for instance we would have Liberal/Labour coalitions indefinitely.

[New Stephania]

How exactly does FPTP get rid of bad politicians and bad governments exactly?

Well it does compared to proportional systems. True you can get a majority government under FPTP with around the 37% - 38% mark but if its bellow that your out the running. If you have PR systems you end up with governments hanging in by clumping together rainbow coalitions. I mean if we had PR in the UK for instance we would have Liberal/Labour coalitions indefinitely.

Sounds good to me considering the major parties' track records of ramming through legislation that shits on people. I dread to think about what the Tories would have done over the last five years without having to wrangle in a coalition, I dread to think about what they will do if they win a majority in May.

[Greater-London]

Sounds good to me considering the major parties' track records of ramming through legislation that shits on people. I dread to think about what the Tories would have done over the last five years without having to wrangle in a coalition, I dread to think about what they will do if they win a majority in May.

I'm not going to try and defend the Torries, or the coalitions record in government; simply that any electoral system that allows for perpetual governments of any colour is bad because it breads incompetence.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Sounds good to me considering the major parties' track records of ramming through legislation that shits on people. I dread to think about what the Tories would have done over the last five years without having to wrangle in a coalition, I dread to think about what they will do if they win a majority in May.

I'm not going to try and defend the Torries, or the coalitions record in government; simply that any electoral system that allows for perpetual governments of any colour is bad because it breads incompetence.

I wonder, how does a coalition government breed a system of perpetual governments? Any more than a FPTP model, that is? Because I see nothing inherent to a proportional system that would lead anyone to believe that it would lead to perpetual governance. There are still elections every four years, and the party with the largest number of votes still gives us our Prime Minister. That party still becomes the ruling party.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I'm not really sure Bayesian regret is legitimate, because it's trying to use utility functions in a manner that seems pretty cardinal, and range voting has some pretty problematic features (treating preferences as cardinal, not ordinal).

Voter preferences strike me as fundamentally cardinal, with ordinal only as an abstraction. I have no difficulty with rating candidates on a 0-9 cardinal system as A=1, B=9, C=8, instead of merely B>C>A. The ordinal system leaves a great deal of information on voter preferences out.

You're right. For the Condorcet method you mentioned earlier to hold, you only need an ordinal and transitive ranking of candidates. But there are plenty of methods in political economy (which is the subset of economics that's concerned with voting decisions, among other things) where we think of politician platforms as existing in a continuous, multidimensional policy space, which are then mapped to voters' distinct utility values. Often the "strength" (i.e. value) of the preference for one platform over the other is a driving force behind analyses where many different trade-offs are involved, not just how platforms are ranked relative to one another. The challenge of this in practice is approximating the "distance" between each voter's preference over each policy platform in a way that's comparable across voters.

Wanting to encourage "sincere voting" is essentially the same as wanting to implement a "strategy-proof" voting system. A strategy-proof system is a system in which intentionally misreporting your preferences cannot provide you a better outcome than sincerely reporting your preferences. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem states that only a dictatorial voting system can ensure strategy-proofness, which is an interesting result.

[New Stephania]

Sounds good to me considering the major parties' track records of ramming through legislation that shits on people. I dread to think about what the Tories would have done over the last five years without having to wrangle in a coalition, I dread to think about what they will do if they win a majority in May.

I'm not going to try and defend the Torries, or the coalitions record in government; simply that any electoral system that allows for perpetual governments of any colour is bad because it breads incompetence.

Surely our current system allows for a perpetual duopoly. We had 13 years of Labour wrecking the country, before that we had 18 years of the Tories. I think we only ended up with a coalition this time because people were sick of either having all the power.

[Greater-London]

I wonder, how does a coalition government breed a system of perpetual governments? Any more than a FPTP model, that is? Because I see nothing inherent to a proportional system that would lead anyone to believe that it would lead to perpetual governance. There are still elections every four years, and the party with the largest number of votes still gives us our Prime Minister. That party still becomes the ruling party.

Because FPTP over represents majorities, you nearly always end up having a majority government. If you have a proportional system you end up where a party can do badly in an election and still be in government, if not the senior member of a coalition. It doesn't always lead to perpetual governance but it does make it more liekly.

As for the parties receiving the largest number of votes becoming a ruling party , you can do very well in a PR system get say 40% - 45% of the vote but be excluded from govenrment because all the others clump together to keep them out - like how the Italian communist party was kept out of government during the cold war.

[British Home Counties]

I'm not going to try and defend the Torries, or the coalitions record in government; simply that any electoral system that allows for perpetual governments of any colour is bad because it breads incompetence.

Surely our current system allows for a perpetual duopoly. We had 13 years of Labour wrecking the country, before that we had 18 years of the Tories. I think we only ended up with a coalition this time because people were sick of either having all the power.

I wonder how the Americans feel about 165 years of Demreps.

[Greater-London]

Surely our current system allows for a perpetual duopoly. We had 13 years of Labour wrecking the country, before that we had 18 years of the Tories. I think we only ended up with a coalition this time because people were sick of either having all the power.

True. However proportional systems mean that even after those 13 or 18 years you can have those parties still in government. For instance theres no doubt in my mind that if we had PR in 2010 the incredibly unpopular Gordon Brown would still be our PM

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I wonder, how does a coalition government breed a system of perpetual governments? Any more than a FPTP model, that is? Because I see nothing inherent to a proportional system that would lead anyone to believe that it would lead to perpetual governance. There are still elections every four years, and the party with the largest number of votes still gives us our Prime Minister. That party still becomes the ruling party.

Because FPTP over represents majorities, you nearly always end up having a majority government. If you have a proportional system you end up where a party can do badly in an election and still be in government, if not the senior member of a coalition. It doesn't always lead to perpetual governance but it does make it more liekly.

As for the parties receiving the largest number of votes becoming a ruling party , you can do very well in a PR system get say 40% - 45% of the vote but be excluded from govenrment because all the others clump together to keep them out - like how the Italian communist party was kept out of government during the cold war.

Yeah, in a proportional system, a party can do badly and still be included, but with much, much less power. If a party has only five seats in a Chamber, they are not going to be the most influential people. They might be in the governing coalition, but not with the power they once had. They still only represent the people who voted for them. Of course, one could call that 'perpetual governance', but if the CDA had been included in the Rutte I coalition, you could hardly have called that 'perpetual rule'. They went from being the largest party to a backwater in national politics, without the influence to get even the most basic bills past. Had they been in the coalition, they would have been the butler of the real ruling party, not the commander.

In a good proportional system, the largest party gets the right to initiate talks. This usually ensures that the biggest party becomes the ruling party. If this is not the case, as it was in Italy, one can assume that that one big party is not very favourable among the people or the political class. After all, the communist party in Italy was trying to form a one party state. Try getting anyone to go with that... In that case, it was probably for the best that 40% of the people didn't decide to abolish the democratic system they had. Had Italy known a FPTP model, the communist party would have been the ruling party, capable of doing enormous harm with a minority vote. Now, which alternative is better? Because a ruling coalition always has the support of the majority of the population, at least in the beginning.

[New Stephania]

Surely our current system allows for a perpetual duopoly. We had 13 years of Labour wrecking the country, before that we had 18 years of the Tories. I think we only ended up with a coalition this time because people were sick of either having all the power.

True. However proportional systems mean that even after those 13 or 18 years you can have those parties still in government. For instance theres no doubt in my mind that if we had PR in 2010 the incredibly unpopular Gordon Brown would still be our PM

That's probably true, we would probably have those parties represented in government for many years, however the reason I think a proportional system would benefit the country is because those parties would have to argue their cases, work together, and form alliances. To me this is preferably to a single party imposing a whip and passing legislation when that party did not win even close to a majority of the popular vote and was not elected because it's who people wanted.

[Greater-London]

Yeah, in a proportional system, a party can do badly and still be included, but with much, much less power. If a party has only five seats in a Chamber, they are not going to be the most influential people. They might be in the governing coalition, but not with the power they once had. They still only represent the people who voted for them. Of course, one could call that 'perpetual governance', but if the CDA had been included in the Rutte I coalition, you could hardly have called that 'perpetual rule'. They went from being the largest party to a backwater in national politics, without the influence to get even the most basic bills past. Had they been in the coalition, they would have been the butler of the real ruling party, not the commander.

In a good proportional system, the largest party gets the right to initiate talks. This usually ensures that the biggest party becomes the ruling party. If this is not the case, as it was in Italy, one can assume that that one big party is not very favourable among the people or the political class. After all, the communist party in Italy was trying to form a one party state. Try getting anyone to go with that... In that case, it was probably for the best that 40% of the people didn't decide to abolish the democratic system they had. Had Italy known a FPTP model, the communist party would have been the ruling party, capable of doing enormous harm with a minority vote. Now, which alternative is better? Because a ruling coalition always has the support of the majority of the population, at least in the beginning.

Well no the one big party would be by definition the most popular among the people, they have the greatest mandate of any of the parties to govern. If your unable to form a coalition that means your not favored by your political opponents, which is likely if you want to initiate large scale reform which would harm the other parties. This needn't be the line of banning opposition parties like it was Italy.

As for the whole perpetual government thing, if you have an instance where a party goes from big to small, to big, to small pending results you still end up with "perpetual governments" the same parties are in government just with more or less influence.

Also ruling coalitions don't always have a majority of population of support either, the arithmetic in parliament reflects how people voted but they don't get to decide who gets into bed with who. You don't vote for coalitions and in plenty of instances parties go into coalitions with each other that voters would probably have rejected.

[Crezilivion]

Instant Runoff or Single Transfer looked nice to me.

[New Stephania]

Also ruling coalitions don't always have a majority of population of support either, the arithmetic in parliament reflects how people voted but they don't get to decide who gets into bed with who. You don't vote for coalitions and in plenty of instances parties go into coalitions with each other that voters would probably have rejected.

This is the strength of proportional systems. Those coalitions would reflect the makeup of the voters because seats correlate much more closely with the popular vote.