Why “voting system”?

In the earlier entry on the BC referendum, I quoted a passage from the ballot question. It uses the term, voting system.

Yes, “voting system” rather than “electoral system”. Why? What the voters are being asked to decide is clearly what we political scientists mean by electoral system. Is there something objectionable about that term to the general public?

I do not ever use the term, voting system. However, if I did, I would probably understand it to mean the ballot format and other aspects of the process of casting a vote. I would not understand it to include how seats are allocated. An electoral system, as I understand it, is a set of rules that govern voting, counting, and allocation. A whole electoral system is assembly size, district magnitude, tier structure (if not “simple” single-tier), ballot format, and the specific seat-allocation rule. The BC proposals cover all these aspects. It clearly is a referendum on the electoral system. Yet it is officially, “a referendum on what voting system we should use for provincial elections.”

I find it puzzling, although not troubling in any sort of way. (Now, if the term starts creeping into political science, I reserve the right to object.) On the other hand, proponents of change in Canada seem to prefer to call proportional representation “ProRep” rather than PR. I can kind of understand that (“PR” means public relations to civilians). Whenever I see “ProRep” I flinch just a little. But if calling it that helps sell it, I can get over it.

What could we expect from electoral reform in BC?





















System Expected Ns Expected Nv Expected s1
MMP 2.81 3.19 0.46
DMP1 2.94 3.32 0.45
DMP2 2.61 3.01 0.49
RUP 2.46 2.87 0.51







Greece–what next? (Yes, I asked that already)

As I type this, nearly three fifths of the votes have been counted in the Greek referendum, and the percentage voting no keeps creeping up, currently 61.3%. This is quite a decisive result, notwithstanding a consensus of several polls that it was too close to call. So now what?

One hint of a possible next political step comes in the Guardian live blog:

And there is even the possibility that Greece’s president, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, resigns to trigger early elections in an attempt to prevent Greece sliding out of the eurozone.

Interesting. It was the deadlock of the parliament last December over choosing a president that, under a provision of the constitution, triggered the early general election. Pavlopoulos is a former minister in conservative New Democracy (ND) governments, but was put forward as the new government’s candidate (after a farther-left rebellion inside SYRIZA against the initial candidate).

I find it fascinating that an almost completely powerless presidency becomes the focus of deadlocks and early elections for parliament. In December, the ND-PASOK government and the opposition (of which SYRIZA was the largest party) could not agree on a candidate. It takes 3/5 to elect a president, or else there is a new general election. But the new parliament can elect a president with a simple majority. Despite that, SYRIZA put forward an ND guy, who then won over 2/3. So ND’s last lever might be for its guy to resign as president and try to force a renewed deadlock over the presidency. Which is powerless–except when its occupant resigns!

New Brunswick government will not hold referendum on MMP

The Liberal Party government of New Brunswick, which took power in elections last fall, thanks to the existing FPTP system’s reversal of the popular-vote outcome, has called off the referendum on the electoral system planned for February, 2008. That referendum had been scheduled by the previous Conservative government in response to the recommendation of the independent Commission on Legislative Democracy. The major recommendation of the Commission had been to move the provincial legislative elections to MMP. Instead, the current government calls for a series of relatively timid steps towards political reform, not including any the reform of the very electoral system that produced the current spurious-majority government.

In the run-up to that election, I asked if electoral reform was “stalled” (on account of the major parties’ ignoring the already public reform recommendations in their platforms). After the anomaly of the plurality reversal, I speculated on whether a government that was based on the second-most vote thanks to the system the Commission proposed to abolish through referendum would have the nerve to call off a referendum that had been agreed to by the party that, in fact, obtained the plurality when seeking reelection. Well, now we know. Some nerve!