A 2006 decision in Prince Edward Island—to discard two independent revisions of the electoral boundaries and approve a proposal commissioned by the governing party—has drawn a lot of attention from coast to coast. Victoria’s "Times Colonist," for instance, published a cartoon in which PEI changes shape until it turns into a screw nail.
But the practice of drawing new constituency maps to gain political advantage is not new. Political scientists call it gerrymandering. In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts imposed a law that artificially divided the State into new Senatorial districts. This division led to the election of 29 Senators from the Governor’s party and 11 from the opposition, although 50,164 electors voted for the former and 51,766 for the latter. This discrepancy didn’t go unnoticed, and neither did the strange shapes of the new constituencies, one of which looked like a salamander, or a Gerrymander—as the editor of a local newspaper was inspired to call it. The term spread quickly and became popular all over the world.
Gerrymandering was not too common in the past, but it appears more frequently since computer cartography has developed. In 1982 in California, for instance, the boundary of a constituency, drawn to the advantage of the incumbent candidate, was a 385-sided figure. Gerrymandering is also blamed in the 1990 election to the House of Representatives in Texas, where one party won a large majority of seats against the rival party, although the vote was almost equal, 1,083,351 to 1,080,788. Last year’s elections in Italy led to accusations of gerrymandering against the government of Silvio Berlusconi. Apart from changing the electoral voting system to its advantage, the governing party and its allies also redrew the constituencies, hoping to remain in power. Their efforts, however, didn’t bear fruit. Berlusconi’s main opponent, Romano Prodi, won the 2006 Italian elections in spite of all the backstairs manipulations.
As the recent Italian experience shows, gerrymandering does not ensure victory. Unless the patterns of several consecutive elections point at stable population groups that support a certain party, it is difficult to decide how gerrymandering affects an election outcome. Especially in Canada, where the first-past-the-post system is used, it is rarely possible to tell whether the result was twisted by the voting model or by the new constituency division. This difficulty occurs because the first-past-the-post method can create large discrepancies between the popular vote and the distribution of seats in the legislative body. No wonder that in a referendum held in 2005 in British Columbia, 58 percent of those who went to the polls expressed their wish to change the electoral system. Ontario is also moving in the direction of a referendum on voting.
Gerrymandering can lead to a lot of bitterness between rival parties and divide the population, the more so when these parties are built along ethnic, religious, or racial lines. An example in this sense is Northern Ireland, where a religious minority believes, rightly or wrongly, to be deprived by its share of power. Political scientists often cite the three constituencies of Derry City in the 1960s. Due to gerrymandering, the Nationalist Party, backed by Catholics, obtained 8 seats and the Unionist Party, backed by Protestants, won 12 seats. This result contrasted with the 14,429 votes cast for the Nationalists and 8,781 for the Unionists.
Internal ethnic, religious, or racial tensions can lead to dangerous escalations when gerrymandering becomes an issue. To avoid undesired conflicts, governments are entitled to pass clear laws about how and under what circumstances boundary revisions can be made, appoint non-partisan committees for this purpose, and try to avoid any perception of bias. This is the only way to ensure that democracy is respected.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Electoral Reform in Canada Long Overdue
On 13 October 2007, Victoria's "Times Colonist" published an article filled with misinformation about voting systems (Iain Hunter, “Electoral reform comes with a hidden cost"). Therefore I would like to set the record straight.
Mathematicians and political scientists have researched voting for the past 250 years. The first studied aspect is how a voting system expresses the choice of the people. The second deals with the political consequences of the model. The first-past-the-post system was proved to be the worst from both points of view. No wonder that very few democratic countries use it today. They are: Bangladesh, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Mongolia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. None of the newly emerged democracies in Eastern Europe adopted it in the 1990s, all of them opting for some form of proportional representation.
Under the first-past-the-post method, the candidate with most votes wins. In a ten-candidate riding, a winner could emerge with as few as 10-percent-plus-one votes, a case in which almost 90 percent of the electorate could have stayed home. The distortion between the popular vote and the distribution of seats is usually large. In 1996 in British Columbia, for instance, the NDP won a majority of 39 out of 75 seats with only 39.5 percent of the vote, although the Liberals obtained 42 percent. In 2001, the Liberals won 77 seats out of 79 with 58 percent popular support. Including those who didn’t vote, only 41 percent of the electorate endorsed this crushing victory of the Liberals. Such anomalies are rather the rule. In British general elections, for example, a relative match between the popular vote and the distribution of seats happened only twice in history: in 1892 and in 1923.
Supporters of the first-past-the-post-system invoke the issue of stability. They claim that this model leads to majority regimes, which dominate the legislative body and can impose the laws the country needs. Such governments often claim to have a mandate from the people to implement their political platform. As a consequence they cut short many debates the opposition initiates. But the mandate issue is unsupported by figures like above, when majority governments are backed by less than half of the electorate. In Britain, for instance, the highest number of minority elected members of parliament was 408 (or 64.3 percent of the House) in February 1974. The elections of October 1974 led to 380 (or 59.8 percent) of minority representatives. High figures also occurred in 1929, almost 54 percent, and 1997, 47 percent.
Political stability under the first-past-the-post system is an illusion when three or more parties come into play. Canadian federal politics, for instance, has always accommodated more than two parties, though only two of them have played a major role. But the other parties have had an important impact. Out of 39 elections held in Canada in democratic times, 12 (more than 30 percent) have led to minority regimes. None lasted a full term so far, and most of them were in power for less than two years. Moreover, the first-past-the-post system is the very reason of instability in minority governments because a swing of a few percent in polls can put one party in majority territory with only 42 or 43-percent support, so that party is tempted to trigger and election. When no party has at least 50-percent endorsement, which is usually the case, politicians are more likely to negotiate deals and ensure stability.
There are many examples of highly successful minority regimes. The most famous in Canada is the government of Lester Pearson elected in 1963. During its term, his government introduced the Canada health care system, presented the country with a new flag, and created the Canada Pension Plan. In less than five years, Pearson changed the face of this country for the better without breaking any election promise.
Most European countries use proportional representation systems, and they work well. But no voting method is perfect—as it was proved by Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, a result for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1972. Nevertheless, we know that some voting methods are better than others, and that the first-past-the-post system is the most undemocratic of all. Almost 58 percent of British Columbians who voted in the 2005 referendum for electoral reform seem to know that. They also know that there is no hidden cost to pay by making our voting system more democratic, and giving women and minorities their voice in our legislature. Premier Campbell has promised a new referendum on electoral reform in 2009. The majority of British Columbians are looking forward to it.
Mathematicians and political scientists have researched voting for the past 250 years. The first studied aspect is how a voting system expresses the choice of the people. The second deals with the political consequences of the model. The first-past-the-post system was proved to be the worst from both points of view. No wonder that very few democratic countries use it today. They are: Bangladesh, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Mongolia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. None of the newly emerged democracies in Eastern Europe adopted it in the 1990s, all of them opting for some form of proportional representation.
Under the first-past-the-post method, the candidate with most votes wins. In a ten-candidate riding, a winner could emerge with as few as 10-percent-plus-one votes, a case in which almost 90 percent of the electorate could have stayed home. The distortion between the popular vote and the distribution of seats is usually large. In 1996 in British Columbia, for instance, the NDP won a majority of 39 out of 75 seats with only 39.5 percent of the vote, although the Liberals obtained 42 percent. In 2001, the Liberals won 77 seats out of 79 with 58 percent popular support. Including those who didn’t vote, only 41 percent of the electorate endorsed this crushing victory of the Liberals. Such anomalies are rather the rule. In British general elections, for example, a relative match between the popular vote and the distribution of seats happened only twice in history: in 1892 and in 1923.
Supporters of the first-past-the-post-system invoke the issue of stability. They claim that this model leads to majority regimes, which dominate the legislative body and can impose the laws the country needs. Such governments often claim to have a mandate from the people to implement their political platform. As a consequence they cut short many debates the opposition initiates. But the mandate issue is unsupported by figures like above, when majority governments are backed by less than half of the electorate. In Britain, for instance, the highest number of minority elected members of parliament was 408 (or 64.3 percent of the House) in February 1974. The elections of October 1974 led to 380 (or 59.8 percent) of minority representatives. High figures also occurred in 1929, almost 54 percent, and 1997, 47 percent.
Political stability under the first-past-the-post system is an illusion when three or more parties come into play. Canadian federal politics, for instance, has always accommodated more than two parties, though only two of them have played a major role. But the other parties have had an important impact. Out of 39 elections held in Canada in democratic times, 12 (more than 30 percent) have led to minority regimes. None lasted a full term so far, and most of them were in power for less than two years. Moreover, the first-past-the-post system is the very reason of instability in minority governments because a swing of a few percent in polls can put one party in majority territory with only 42 or 43-percent support, so that party is tempted to trigger and election. When no party has at least 50-percent endorsement, which is usually the case, politicians are more likely to negotiate deals and ensure stability.
There are many examples of highly successful minority regimes. The most famous in Canada is the government of Lester Pearson elected in 1963. During its term, his government introduced the Canada health care system, presented the country with a new flag, and created the Canada Pension Plan. In less than five years, Pearson changed the face of this country for the better without breaking any election promise.
Most European countries use proportional representation systems, and they work well. But no voting method is perfect—as it was proved by Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, a result for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1972. Nevertheless, we know that some voting methods are better than others, and that the first-past-the-post system is the most undemocratic of all. Almost 58 percent of British Columbians who voted in the 2005 referendum for electoral reform seem to know that. They also know that there is no hidden cost to pay by making our voting system more democratic, and giving women and minorities their voice in our legislature. Premier Campbell has promised a new referendum on electoral reform in 2009. The majority of British Columbians are looking forward to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
