British or Republican Parliament?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

In Sweden, we have a parliamentary system more similar to the British than the American. Our ministers are appointed by the PM, but most be approved by the parliament. (That is a rubberstamp, since the PM is elected by the parliament) They *can* be subjected to a vote of no confidence, in which case the parliament fires them. Extremely uncommon, but can happen.

The PM chooses his ministers usually among the parliament members, although he is under no obligation to do so. (The present PM has made it an art to totally stump the pundits in choice of new ministers) They are frequently members of the parliamentary committee that oversees the same topics that the ministerial post covers. Some others come from leading posts in national boards of this-or-that. Some come from the national union leadership (or employer´s organization, if the non-socialists are at power) This ensures at least a minimal level of familiarity with the issues.

Since Swedish elections require so little money so that it is not a decisive factor in who wins, there are large differences between the US. and Swedish political landscape. For instance, it has never happened here that a big election fund donor has got any post, since election funds are a new phenomenon, and the biggest donations are peanuts, even compared to what it costs to run for election here.

Why is it cheap? Until recently, political TV ads were illegal, and they were very little used in last election. They did not seem to change anything, so that will probably stay the case. In a country the size of California and 9 million people, everything is just of another scale. Also, the election system - 24 voting districts for 349 places (no senate, just house) with near-perfect proportionality and multiple places for each party in each districs places premium on being liked within the party cadre, work effort in the party, but not on being able to stand out in a crowd. When small rules changes were made last election in order to promote voting of a person, it turned out that voters punished many rock-the-boaters, and gave a lot of votes to those with seniority. As you see, this system only requires modest amounts of cash, and getting them is not a top priority for most politicians over here - they have far more important things to do

We have an increasing number of political broilers over here also, but it was no so long ago - a few decades - when being a member of parliament was a part-time job for many of its members. Several of the parliamentarians here have worked full-time, or at least part-time before politics took over for them.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Until recently, political TV ads were illegal, and they were very little used in last election.

Now, THAT is one aspect of the Parliamentary system I wish we could emulate here! And the limitation on the duration of campaigning as well---I think Britain limits it to about a month before the election. Here the pols start campaigning for reelection the day after they enter office, and it really heats up a year or even two before the next election. Practically speaking it's incessant, and so is the fundraising.

[pkt]

Under the current British system we're saddled by the "first-pass-the-post" winner takes all system. i.e. whoever has the most votes in a electoral area wins that seat. So when the whole country / province is taken together, more than likely one'll end up with the winner having not the most popular votes.

In this regards, many of the European countries using the popular votes system, [pop by rep] be it with one or two votes per person is more democratic. i.e. Each voter gets two votes: one to vote for the person running, one for the party. So when the popular votes are counted after a person has been elected to represent the district, the parties will be a proportion of the votes.

Yes, this may result in minority governments that have to form coalition to govern. IMHO, minority gov'ts if formed properly - I'm referring to minor religious parties that, under this sytem, might wield way to much influence than their numbers infer - wil produce the best results for the people.

BC is currently taking the first step towards an electoral system reform...

In Canada, the writ is drop, and the election may be 30 days or some very short period. Not as long as the US system.

All politicians act for their reelecion the day the enter office. That's the nature of the job.

There are many election reform under discussion in Canada. Reform such as gov't providing those who run with an election fund. Reforms like restricting companies and unions to a very low $$$ amount that they may contribute to a candidate.... etc.

PK

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by pkt
So when the whole country / province is taken together, more than likely one'll end up with the winner having not the most popular votes.

Huh, and here I thought we'd invented that in our last Presidential election...

[civiltech]

Originally posted by pkt
Under the current British system we're saddled by the "first-pass-the-post" winner takes all system. i.e. whoever has the most votes in a electoral area wins that seat. So when the whole country / province is taken together, more than likely one'll end up with the winner having not the most popular votes.

In this regards, many of the European countries using the popular votes system, [pop by rep] be it with one or two votes per person is more democratic. i.e. Each voter gets two votes: one to vote for the person running, one for the party. So when the popular votes are counted after a person has been elected to represent the district, the parties will be a proportion of the votes.

Yes, this may result in minority governments that have to form coalition to govern. IMHO, minority gov'ts if formed properly - I'm referring to minor religious parties that, under this sytem, might wield way to much influence than their numbers infer - wil produce the best results for the people.

BC is currently taking the first step towards an electoral system reform...

In Canada, the writ is drop, and the election may be 30 days or some very short period. Not as long as the US system.

All politicians act for their reelecion the day the enter office. That's the nature of the job.

There are many election reform under discussion in Canada. Reform such as gov't providing those who run with an election fund. Reforms like restricting companies and unions to a very low $$$ amount that they may contribute to a candidate.... etc.

PK

I'm not to quick to embrase the popular vote concept in a country like ours. The whole evolution of our voting district has come to be for a simple reason: How do you represent the few people in desolate areas, while still keeping the interest of the mass populations in large city areas. By popular vote, really, you could campaign in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and get your popular vote! The reason we have such large districts (Kenora Rainy River is the largest in Ontario, about the size of France) is to better represent that region in the House of Commons. Though Kenora Rainy River is the largest, it still has one of the smallest populations for a district. Say compared to a district in Toronto! But both regions have equal say in the Legislature. By going to a popular vote for a Prime Minister, you have basically told anyone north of the 51 parallel to quitely shut up, and let us choose for you! I'm not saying that 100 people in the north shoud have the same say as 100 000 people in the south, but our form of government has toiled over how to represent everyone more/less fairly since day one. This is what we came up with to try and balance everything out. It's not perfect, but in a country like Canada, it's geographic location, and inbalance of population, what can you do? I don't see 5 million people moving to Nunavat anytime soon!

However, that being said, I would like to see Quebec pulled back a bit. It has "way" to many seats for its population and region. How do you pull back? You can't. Once you have an MP, that's it. You can grow, but you can't shrink. The Queen would never give any act contrary to that Royal Assent. It's simply unconstitutional in Canada. So to calm your anger...you fix the SENATE. Instead of it being a "house of Lords" where the lap dogs of the gov't in power get rewarded, make it accountable again. How it worked 100 years ago! 5 senate seats per province. Period. Everyone in the great Dominion of Canada has an equal say. And yes....even the Newfy's!!!! And none of this "only can return a proposed bill to the House 3 times." Make it indefinite! The Senate should have more responsibility, but NOT withour more accountability, and some major restructuring changes. The changes would be required to bring it back to it's original intent!


It was well thought out by the Fed's to limit the monies donated by Corporations, Labout Unions, etc. I know a lot of Union Members who can't stand it when there "Union Due's" go into the pocket of a party they don't support, and can't understand why their Trade Union is basically puting themselves in a coflict of interest position. As well, nice to see Irving Corporation won't have total control over the East Coast anymore!

[Dave]

Huh, and here I thought we'd invented that in our last Presidential election...

Can some one explain the point of/reason for your electoral college system of electing a president.

[jeff]

Dave, I think that the original reason was that the framers of the US Constitution were not uniformly in favor of pure representational democracy. Gotta keep the unwashed masses from doing the wrong thing, you see. Hence the need to keep a layer between the voters and the actual means by which the President is selected. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I have this wrong, of course!

Now, I think it's an anachronism and needs to be done away with. The counter-argument to that is that direct representation on a national basis would mean that candidates would focus exclusively on large population centers, and ignore the rural. The counter-counter argument is that those low-population areas currently over-represented (Why we have caucuses in Iowa, for example)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by jeff
Dave, I think that the original reason was that the framers of the US Constitution were not uniformly in favor of pure representational democracy. Gotta keep the unwashed masses from doing the wrong thing, you see. Hence the need to keep a layer between the voters and the actual means by which the President is selected. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I have this wrong, of course!

Now, I think it's an anachronism and needs to be done away with. The counter-argument to that is that direct representation on a national basis would mean that candidates would focus exclusively on large population centers, and ignore the rural. The counter-counter argument is that those low-population areas currently over-represented (Why we have caucuses in Iowa, for example)

We have pure representation by population in Sweden, and the rural areas are not forgotten by the campaigning politicians.

We do have a "Centrist party", formerly the farmer´s party which is much stronger in rural areas than in the cities. They have about 7% of the total vote, and the same proportion of the parliamentarians. Their power, however, far exceeds that - they can form alliances to both directions, and they have managed to keep themselves in the forefront of Swedish politics for decades. They have had the PM post in a few coalition governements, for instance.

The "forget the rural" mindset only works in first-past-the-post single-seat representative bodies. In a multiseat constituency every vote counts. In Sweden, the voting system also makes gerrymandering impossible, so the incumbents can not use that way either to crush small parties.

(Our parliament has 349 seats, but only 310 go directly to the constitunecies. Each party with more than 4% of the total votes gets exactly the number of seats in proportion to its vote, and the remaining 39 seats are used to even out differences. say, if one party would get a vote proprotional to 1.8 seats from one constituency they will get 1 seat in the first round of allotment, and probably another even-out seat among the 39. Works perfectly.)

Bottom line: the plurality system is almost the worst possible among all that have been dreamed up by mankind. It is open to all sorts of abuses and accidental perversions of popular opinion. It is actually possible to prove that no voting system is impervious to all kinds of problems - Arrow´s theorem - but it also possible to prove that they are much more common in the plurality system. The sole redeeming feature of plurality is that is simple to understand, even for dumb people, but the others can be explained, give a little time and a honst will to understand, and willingness to exert one´s mind.

Do a googlesearch on Condorcet, IRV, Smith set, etc. and you will find loads about various voting systems on the net. Condorcet and IRV have the nice feature that they make attack ads counterproductive in just about *any* situation.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[civiltech]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!



We have pure representation by population in Sweden, and the rural areas are not forgotten by the campaigning politicians.

We do have a "Centrist party", formerly the farmer´s party which is much stronger in rural areas than in the cities. They have about 7% of the total vote, and the same proportion of the parliamentarians. Their power, however, far exceeds that - they can form alliances to both directions, and they have managed to keep themselves in the forefront of Swedish politics for decades. They have had the PM post in a few coalition governements, for instance.

The "forget the rural" mindset only works in first-past-the-post single-seat representative bodies. In a multiseat constituency every vote counts. In Sweden, the voting system also makes gerrymandering impossible, so the incumbents can not use that way either to crush small parties.

(Our parliament has 349 seats, but only 310 go directly to the constitunecies. Each party with more than 4% of the total votes gets exactly the number of seats in proportion to its vote, and the remaining 39 seats are used to even out differences. say, if one party would get a vote proprotional to 1.8 seats from one constituency they will get 1 seat in the first round of allotment, and probably another even-out seat among the 39. Works perfectly.)

Bottom line: the plurality system is almost the worst possible among all that have been dreamed up by mankind. It is open to all sorts of abuses and accidental perversions of popular opinion. It is actually possible to prove that no voting system is impervious to all kinds of problems - Arrow´s theorem - but it also possible to prove that they are much more common in the plurality system. The sole redeeming feature of plurality is that is simple to understand, even for dumb people, but the others can be explained, give a little time and a honst will to understand, and willingness to exert one´s mind.

Do a googlesearch on Condorcet, IRV, Smith set, etc. and you will find loads about various voting systems on the net. Condorcet and IRV have the nice feature that they make attack ads counterproductive in just about *any* situation.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

In no way am I trying to be rude, but in a country the size of Sweden pure representation may work.

On countries several times the size (US, Russia, Canada, Australia, Brazil) it can't.

Peter Gustaffson, sometimes I envy you and the country you live in. Sounds like a Utopia sometimes.

Best regards,

[I_luv_saber]

Bleh! I have the stink of politics on me now! Must go shower! Well, cest la vie! I'm gonna go fence...

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata
So, you didn't care for Carter, either, then? Arguably the smartest President we've had this century...also mispronounced the word.


Non omnia possumus omnes. I'd rather have a President who can lead than one who's spent all his time perfecting superficial qualities like appearance, diction, gestures and other tools of the demagogue...

Funny that, considering that Carter had a "nucular" engineering degree. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt since he had that extreme southern accent.

Dubya tries to put on a southern accent, which he may have genuinely acquired over time recently, but really, he grew up in Kennebunkport and went to Andover/Yale/Hahvahd. There's no need for him to affect a populist accent other than for political gain.

[Inquartata]

I doubt that it's as much of an affectation as, say, Madonna's British one....

But seriously, to speak with an accent that is not your own ALL the time, without forgetting or slipping, has to be damned near impossible, I would think. I doubt it's put on for political occasions.

BTW, Bob Woodward of Watergate fame also says "nukyuhler". It doesn't have any real correlation with intelligence.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by civiltech
In no way am I trying to be rude, but in a country the size of Sweden pure representation may work.

On countries several times the size (US, Russia, Canada, Australia, Brazil) it can't.

Peter Gustafsson, sometimes I envy you and the country you live in. Sounds like a Utopia sometimes.

Best regards,

No offense taken.

But what does size matter in this regard? Sweden has approx a 1/3rd of the Canadian population. Why would the border between possibility and impossibility lie between our poplulations? Germany has a partial proportional system, and has far more people than Canada. Many of the large democracies have single-seat constituency systems, but I believe that that is more of a historical coincidence than anything else. Can you give an example of a big country trying a proportional system, but ditching it because it did not fit the country´s size?

If size in Sq. km is the deciding factor, well then Sweden is #3 among European countries, considerably larger than for instance GB.

Sweden is no Utopia, but it you really are looking for a place where you want to avoid the bad (rather than search out the good) then it is a good bet. No natural disasters, no dangerous living creatures, unusually uncorrupt politicians, etc.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[damion18d]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!



No offense taken.

But what does size matter in this regard? Sweden has approx a 1/3rd of the Canadian population. Why would the border between possibility and impossibility lie between our poplulations? Germany has a partial proportional system, and has far more people than Canada. Many of the large democracies have single-seat constituency systems, but I believe that that is more of a historical coincidence than anything else. Can you give an example of a big country trying a proportional system, but ditching it because it did not fit the country´s size?

If size in Sq. km is the deciding factor, well then Sweden is #3 among European countries, considerably larger than for instance GB.

Sweden is no Utopia, but it you really are looking for a place where you want to avoid the bad (rather than search out the good) then it is a good bet. No natural disasters, no dangerous living creatures, unusually uncorrupt politicians, etc.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Peter sounds to me like we could take some q's from you. I'd give my left arm for politicians who really cared about the people half as much as they do getting re-elected.