[fvc-wat-disc] MMP on the radio

[Paul Nijjar]

--- Alida and George <burrettga at golden.net> wrote:

> I thought Marcia's input had resolved this: yes, they found that
> MMP DID improve turnout.

A switch to a MMP system *can* improve turnout -- but the
improvements are small, and do  not reverse the downward trend in
voter turnout that major democracies have been facing for a long time
now. 

What is true is that European countries that use PR tend to have
higher turnout rates than other countries (such as Canada and the US)
that are much lower. But turnout rates are declining everywhere, and
there is no good reason to believe that changing the voting system to
a proportional one is the cure. 

This blog post does a reasonable job of showing the trends in New
Zealand and Germany: 

http://eaves.ca/2007/09/13/exploding-the-myth-mmp-and-inceasing-voter-turnout/

He is a little misleading for New Zealand because in 2005 the voter
turnout did rise a little to 81%, as shown in 

http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/e9/html/e9_part9_1.html

but that is still lower than what NZ was experiencing under FPTP.
There is a little bit of a story there (New Zealand had two wrong-way
majorities in 1978 and 1981, so in 1981 and 1984 the turnouts were
pretty high) but the overall trend is pretty clear: there was a small
jump in voter turnout since MMP, and then rates crept down again.  In
fact, voter turnout rates in NZ fell to their lowest levels ever
under MMP. 

Wales and Scotland adopted MMP along with their process of
"devolution". The voter turnout for Wales in particular has been
abysmal. I don't have a nicely compiled list but you can find bits
and pieces of information. For example, it looks like voter turnout
in the Scottish elections has been: 

1999: 58%
2003: 49%
2007: 52%

Again, this does not bode well for the "PR cures voter turnout"
belief. 

Sources: 
http://www.holyrood2007.net/Scotlandnew/php/webpage.php?fid=6?_id=31
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03000.pdf

If you really want then I can try and track down the Wales numbers as
well, but I hope this is enough evidence to demonstrate that I am not
lying to you.
  
> Am I missing something here?
> Did you previously name the origin of the "widespread knowledge" 
> that  disproves Marcia Soeda's  source, research conducted by the
> Assembly?

The origin of this "widespread knowledge" is the voter turnouts that
have been recorded for different countries. But there are many others
-- this issue is studied widely, and nobody has a great answer as to
why turnouts are declining or how to stop it. However, as far as I
know there is not a single definitive work that explains this trend.
One book that discusses these issues in some depth is "Why We Hate
Politics", by Colin Hay, but that is not the only source. 

You might also look at the Lijphardt summary that is on the Fair Vote
Canada site: 

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/files/Lijphart_summary.pdf

The spin in this summary is that voter rates are higher in countries
with PR systems than ones in non-proportional systems, but that is
only AFTER you control for three other variables that have a much
higher impact. That is far from a ringing endorsement. 

As far as the OCA materials go, so far I know of no evidence that the
OCA was told a different story. If you look at page 102 of 

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/Democracy%20at%20Work%20-%20The%20Ontario%20Citizens%27%20Assembly%20on%20Electoral%20Reform.pdf

you will read the following statement: 

"The Academic Director reminded the members that the electoral system
is only one part of the political system, and that a different
electoral system would not necessarily change the political culture.
Furthermore, elements such as voter turnout would likely not change
significantly with a change in the electoral system."

If there were studies shown to the OCA that indicate we could expect
good increases in voter turnout, I for one would appreciate pointers
to them. I want to believe that voter turnout will improve
dramatically, and I would love to tell other people that this is the
case. It hurt quite a bit to learn that we should not expect this. 

It may also be the case that Adam was misinterpreting Hampton, and
that the Ontario leader did not actually imply that voting rates
would improve dramatically. But if that is what he said, then for one
Adam was fooled when he wrote:  "For one, he suggested that moving to
MMP would greatly improve voter turnout, which as I understand it is
not supported by evidence from other MMP jurisdictions."

My contention is the word "greatly". If Hampton is promising big
improvements in voter turnouts then he should stop, because the
evidence does not support that view. Many people (including myself)
believe that proportional systems are one component to improving
voter turnout, but the problem appears to be much bigger than simply
switching to a proportional voting system. 

- Paul

--
Paul Nijjar  http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
Next Referendum Info Session: Sept 18, 7pm
(Please use this Yahoo! account for future correspondence.)


      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com