[EM] It is folly to make false claims for any reform.

[Blake Cretney]

Donald E Davison wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
>      It is wrong to make false claims for any proposed reform.
>      Some election reform people make false claims for Proportional
> Representation(PR) methods. When these claims are not realized, enough
> people will be willing to remove their support of the PR method so that the
> method may be voted out as the area's election method. The people will lose
> good representation just because of a false claim, that should have not
> been made in the first place.
> 
>      PR is an improvement, it gives representation to more people, which
> makes government more representative of the people, but it does not cure
> the common cold, nor make politicians accountable.
> 
>      In 1993, the people of New Zealand voted into law a PR election
> system. It appears that the people were told at the time that this new
> system would somehow have politicians keeping their promises, that the pace
> of radical economic reform would be slowed, that the dominance of major
> political parties would be kept in check, that the new system would bring
> integrity back into politics, and that the members would work together for
> the good of the country.
>      These are all false claims. No election system can do any of these
> things, which is now being realized in New Zealand, with the result that
> the people are now talking about doing away with the system.
> 
>      It is folly to make false claims for any reform.
> 
> Regards,
> Donald
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  (Claims of the New Zealand MMP from the text of Yoko Kobayashi)
> 
> Complex NZ voting system questioned as poll nears.  [Abridged]
>    By Yoko Kobayashi
> 
>    MMP was adopted following a referendum in 1993 on the back of growing
> dissatisfaction with the way politicians elected under the British-style
> first-past-the-post-system did not keep promises.
> 
>    Some MMP supporters had even hoped to slow the pace of the radical
> economic reforms which characterised the policies of the two major right
> and left leaning parties from the 1980s onwards.
> 
>    By allowing smaller parties to be represented in the 120-member single
> chamber parliament, the hope was to keep in check the dominance of major
> political parties and bring integrity back into politics.
> 
>    However, in reality, smaller parties have often occupied a position
> where they tilt the balance of power and in the 1996-98 period the tiny,
> populist New Zealand First party brought instability to a coalition
> government that critics said rendered it unable to carry out significant
> policy moves.

What's the difference between "slowing the pace of reform," and
making the government "unable to carry out significant policy moves?"

What's the difference between "checking the dominance of major
political parties," and "bringing instability to a coalition
government?"

Which phrase you use depends only on whether you approve of the
result or not.  These criticisms seem like evidence that PR does have
some of the effects you suggest no electoral system can have.  It's
just that some people don't want these effects.

You mention promise-breaking.  I tend to differentiate
promise-breaking into two categories.  Politicians often promise
things like low unemployment and a strong economy.  If they don't
succeed, that is more of a failure than a lie.  I can't see why that
would be more or less common in any system.

More interesting is when parties significantly misrepresent what
policies they will implement when elected.  This Mandate-reversal was
the main problem they were trying to fix in New Zealand by moving to
PR.  Two successive governments followed a policy of radical and
unpopular economic reforms.  The second, after having promised to
repeal them.  

I have thought about why there might be a difference in
mandate-reversal between FPP and PR countries, and have come to the
conclusion that there are three main reasons.

1.  Concentration of Power

In parliamentary FPP countries power is concentrated in the hands of
a single individual.  It is easier for a single person to lie, or
change his mind, then to get a number of distinct groups to do so.

2.  Lack of Options

If there are only two major parties, and one switches to the same
policy as the other, it is difficult for the voters to punish it, as
all winnable candidates will be advocating the same policy.  The
public will conclude that the policy is inevitable, and with good
reason.

3.  Opposition Syndrome

Because policies are only seriously debated when the Government and
Opposition disagree, extreme adversariality is seen as a virtue.  One
result is that the Opposition often adopts a poorly thought out
contrarian platform that it will discard when it gets elected.

As well, the electorate will likely re-elect the Government if they
see it as indistinguishable from the Opposition.  So, the Opposition
feels strong pressure to distinguish itself from the Government, while
the Government attempts to move in the direction of the Opposition. 
The resulting strategy is to run as if you will reverse all the
current Governments policies, and then when you are elected, embrace
the policies of the now Opposition.

Mandate-reversal seems to be less evident in the US than in other FPP
countries (like Canada), and this may be because the Concentration of
Power and Opposition Syndrome are less evident.

Of course, it would take a careful comparison to determine which
countries really have less mandate-reversal.

---
Blake Cretney