[fvc-wat-disc] Sept 8: KPL presentation

[Paul Nijjar]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:25:15AM -0400, arthurd23 arthurd23 wrote:
> 
> If we attempt to be impartial, it shouldn't be difficult to have PR pros vastly
> outnumber FPTP and AV pros.
> 
> The only pro for FPTP that I am aware of is that it is simple. Are there any
> others?

Yes. There are several advantages to FPTP: 

- If you care about geographic concentration vs overall
  proportionality, then FPTP is a good system for you. The Bloc
  benefits from this, as does the NDP in some places.

- If you want large big-tent parties to swap power every few
  elections, and want to squeeze out smaller parties, then FPTP is an
  okay system for you. Parties with good regional concentrations (the
  Bloc, the NDP in some places) can still exist, but small ("fringe")
  parties get wiped out. This is not academic: in addition to nice
  fuzzy Green parties, there will be xenophobic anti-immigration
  parties springing up as well.

- Related to the above, FPTP means that there are fewer parties in
  contention, which means the media gets to pay attention to fewer
  leaders (and can tactfully make sure that leaders of small parties
  do not get invited to leaders debates, lest they inadvertently
  impress somebody). This makes the horse-racing stories we like to
  tell more compelling.

- If you want parties in power to rule unimpeded then FPTP distortions
  are much more likely to give you that "majority" rule. There is some
  argument (which I do not really believe) that this will incline
  ruling governments to make long-term decisions as opposed to
  jockeying for popularity at every step. 

- In principle (although I feel less in practice) FPTP means that
  people vote for local representation (as opposed to parties or party
  leaders). That local representation is supposed to be accountable to
  its constituency. I do not believe that this myth is accurate given
  the way we vote, but FPTP advocates will cite it repeatedly.

Many of us consider these properties faults of the system, not
advantages. But there are reasonable people in this world who view
these properties as strengths. 

> 
> The only advantage of AV is that the winning candidate accumulates
> 50% support when you include enough second place and third place
> supporters who don't really favour the winning candidate.  

The appeal of AV to non-PR people is that it reduces the effect of
vote splitting (which is basically the same thing as you said). 

- Paul