Comments on the Colorado MMP Initiative

[Gary Swing]

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, New Democracy wrote:

> Dear Gary,
> 
>      What is good about this initiative is that it is being done. The
> people should vote for it because it will be an improvement. Having said
> that, I do have some comments.
> 
>      I realize that it is too late to expect any changes to the proposed
> 1998 initiative, but I would like to comment in expectation of future
> initiatives - anywhere in the world.
> 
> Section 2. (3) Single-Seat Districts:
> 
>      I expected that the initiative would have single-seat districts. There
> seems to be a mind set among the people who advocate MMP, that the system
> must have single-seat districts. I would like to see multi-seat districts
> used - even if it is only a two seat district. Two seats will give the
> people more choice and improve the party proportionality in each district.

To me, the whole point of using MMP is to preserve some single-member
districts. It's a hybrid that preserves some of the familiar
system. Otherwise, I think regional party lists with a uniform quota or
STV would make more sense than muti-seat districts under MMP.

  
> Section 2. (6) Thresholds:
> 
>      What is good about your threshold is that it is small, only one seat -
> one of sixty-five, 1.54% (New Zeland uses 5%). But your threshold is still
> a threshold.
> 
>      I would like to suggest that there should not be a threshold.
> 
>      I would further suggest that the way to handle the parties that have
> less than a whole seat is to regard what they do have as being a remainder
> and that we are to work their remainders with the remainders of the other
> parties.

That's not a bad idea, in my view. However, I also think a threshold of
one full seat is reasonable.
 
>      The policy of eliminating the votes of these parties from further
> consideration is not "the right and proper thing to do". You have taken
> some of the people and you have disqualfied their votes. You are doing the
> same as if you stopped these people from voting in the election. A
> threshold is paying tribute to the larger parties - it forces people to
> vote for the larger parties if they want to be sure that their vote is to
> be included. The people that do dare to vote for a small party face the
> possibility of their vote being wasted. This is intimidation of the people.
> 
>      Some say that we must have losers in any election. That is not true in
> the case of an election of a lawmaking body - which can have all the voters
> being on the winning side if we use a good PR method with the correct
> design features. Having a threshold is not a good design feature. The point
> of PR is to make winners of all the voters. We should not do anything to
> turn some of them into losers.
> 
>      Markus Schulze of Germany wrote: "I think, that the aim of
> proportional representation is to minimize the number of the wasted votes."
> I call this the Markus Schulze Rule. A threshold does not obey the Markus
> Schulze Rule.
> 
>      Allow me to explain this threshold thing in language that you may
> understand. Suppose your party, the Green Party, were to have a candidate
> running in a future MMP election in Colorado. Suppose your candidate
> received less than a full seat - he only received 0.995 of a seat.

Just for clarification, I previously ran as a Green candidate for state
representative, continue to work with Greens on projects such as this, and
would most likely vote for a Green Party list for general assembly, but
I'm no longer a member of the Green Party. In fact, this year I'm running
for U.S. Senate as a candidate of the United States Pacifist Party. 

> 
>      Under my suggestions, your candidate will be elected because he has a
> high remainder and inturn all the Green Party voters will [not?] be
represented.

True, but 1.54% is a pretty low threshold. I wouldn't be greatly concerned 
about failing to win representation for a party that didn't poll that much
of the vote. I think there would likely be more criticism arguing that
this threshold is too low, than too high.
 
>      But, under the policy of your initiative, your candidate will be
> eliminated and the votes of all the members of the Green Party will be
> wasted - not used - no effect in the election - no representation for your
> party.
> 
>      It is in your best interest to treat all candidates and all the voters
> with equality. Besides it is "the right and proper thing to do".
> 
> Section2. (10) The Personal Ballot:
> 
>      I fail to understand how the personal ballots in your initiative can
> be of much value to the candidates - nor to the voters. I can only detect
> one rare set of conditions under which these personal ballots might help -
> and then only for one candidate on a party list.

It gives voters a better chance to help elect their top choice candidate
within a list.
 
>      I approve of the personal ballot, but the ballots would have more
> value if the tally of them would be used to determine the order of the
> candidates on the party lists. Then you would have an Open Party List - an
> improvement.

This proposal already uses an open party list, of course. The distinction
you make here not between open and closed lists, but between un-ordered
and pre-ordered lists. That's not the same thing.
 
I don't agree that un-ordered lists are an improvement, unless the goal is
to eliminate primary elections and eliminate the accountability of
candidates to their party organization.

Pre-ordered lists allow party members to nominate candidates representing
their party and allow general election voters the choice of casting a
simple vote for their party.

> Section 4. Qualifications of Members:
> 
>      Twenty-five years of age is too young. The maturity and experience of
> life is not in the person yet. I suggest at least forty-five years of age -
> a time when children are raised and careers are established. We the voters
> have the right to ask of a candidate: "What have you been doing the last
> twenty years?" Going to Grade School is not enough of an answer. The best
> way to know if a candidate may do something stupid after he is elected is
> to look and see if he has done anything stupid as an adult. We need about
> thirty years of adulthood in a candidate in order for us to tell.

This is my strongest disagreement with you. I think a representative body
should be open to membership by any elector. Twenty-five is the current
age requirement for members of the Colorado General Assembly, and no
change is proposed here. Personally, I believe that requirement should be
lowered to age eighteen.Changing the age requirement with a PR initiative
might be considered a violation of our state's single subject rule, but
that proposition could be tested in a later effort.

Gary Swing