[EM] PR and Second Chambers

[James Gilmour]

I had written
> > I do appreciate the sophistication that can go into
> > gerrymandering.  However, the
> > fundamental problem remains that 50% of those who
> > vote will get no representation
> > no matter whether the district is gerrymandered or
> > not.

Kevin replied
> I think this is a weird criticism.  No matter how many
> people can be represented under PR, no more than 50%+1
> of the legislators are guaranteed to be represented by
> the policies passed, or by the installed prime
> minister and cabinet.  (Maybe your sentiment is that
> having seats is all that matters for representation?
> I might agree, so then bicameral would be best.)

Mine is not at all a weird criticism.  There are two quite different issues here.
The first, and the more fundamental, is to ensure that the elected assembly
(parliament, council, whatever) is properly representative of those who have
voted.  If that elected body is not properly representative, then a 50%+1 majority
of the legislators is likely to represent far less than 50%+1 of the voters.

Irrespective of how decisions are made, it is important for representative
democracy that all significant views are represented in the legislature.  Minority
views may be consistently voted down, but at least their voices will have been
heard and their points of view will have been argued.  If they have no
representation (elected members), those views will never be heard, much less
argued.

The second issue is how the legislature makes its decisions.  I fully agree that
when the chips are down, the best you can guarantee is 50%+1 of the legislators.
But an assembly elected by PR is likely to have a very different make-up from one
elected by any single-winner method.  Single-party majority government is less
likely.  And of course, if the legislature is mature enough to run well with a
minority executive, then every majority vote will be a consensus result.


> The advantage of a "good single-winner method" is that
> the extremes may be precluded from the result (except
> in that they may cancel out each other's votes).

It is wrong to exclude "extremes" that have significant support among the voters.
It is only the size of the support that should determine representation.  To
exclude "extreme" views that have significant support will undermine
representative democracy and lead to much less desirable direct action.

> The
> reason to preclude them is that it would be
> undesirable for them to participate in a legislative
> majority if other, more centrist segments are omitted
> from it.

There is no reason why proportionate representation of "extremes" should reduce
the proportionate representation of centrist segments.  I can see no reason why
the voting system should be rigged to over-represent one segment (any segment) at
the expense of any other segment.  That would be a denial of representative
democracy.

> The aim of this (centering) is to reduce the
> maximum amount of discontent felt by any segment of
> the voters.

Experience suggest the opposite is more likely.  Rigging the voting system to
exclude the "extremes" will probably create discontent greatly in excess of the
size of those extremes.  Direct action of a non-parliamentary kind may follow - as
many examples around the world sadly testify.

> Maybe you will say that whichever majority can
> assemble itself should receive the power, but I think
> that would be inconsistent with your desire to have
> everyone represented.

I see nothing inconsistent with my views in the suggestion that whichever majority
can assemble itself should receive the power.  If you can persuade an absolute
majority of your fellow electors to vote for your favoured candidates and thus
gain majority representation in the elected legislature, I should want the party
you supported to form the executive.  Similarly, if after the election, no one
party has a majority in the legislature (and minority government is not the
favoured option) I should expect whatever coalition could secure majority support
from the legislators to form the executive.  These approaches are completely
consistent with a demand that all significant points of view are represented in
the elected legislature.


> (It seemed like you didn't believe in "extremes," but
> I wasn't sure if you were serious.  So I won't try to
> define it.)

My aside about "extremes" was to make a point about the use of such terms,
especially the term "extremist parties", the one  that was actually used.  Coupled
with that was the suggestion that "extremist parties" should be excluded from the
elected legislature.  I don't agree - with the one proviso - that they have
significant support.  It should be the proportion of the voters they can persuade
to support them that should determine their representation, not their place on the
political spectrum.  We never solve political problems by denying representation
to those with significant support for their political views.

James