According to Pew's political typology, I am a "liberal." No surprise there...
It states that 17 percent of the public are liberals; 19 percent of registered voters are liberals.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prodi's second fall, or the inane Italian electoral system
Romano Prodi has resigned today as prime minister of Italy, having narrowly lost a Senate vote on a nonbinding foreign policy resolution concerning Iraq (heh). Prodi needed 160 votes (a majority of members) to carry the day and got only 158.
While Prodi's Union coalition has a sizable majority in the Chamber of Deputies, in the Senate their majority is only two seats. This means that the Union has to rely on all its senators, including those from far left parties (the Communists and the Communist Refoundation). These parties often have very little in common with the centrist parties (such as the large, more centrist Margherita party or the smaller Italy of Values, among others). The Union coalition cannot cast these far-left parties aside, however, because the electoral system rewards relative majorities--to the extent that 55 percent of Chamber seats are guaranteed to the coalition or party that takes a relative majority. This electoral system was imposed by Berlusconi prior to the previous election in an attempt to manipulate the results.
However, the system is ridiculous. In addition to this 55 percent clause, seats are distributed proportionally to coalitions or parties in the provinces, to all coalitions receiving at least 10 percent nationwide and independent parties with at least 4 percent. Within coalitions, all parties receiving at least 2 percent are eligible, and the top party under 2 percent is also eligible. This is a recipe for allowing small parties to continue manipulating the larger ones--hardly a solution to one of the larger problems of the last electoral reform implemented in the early '90s.
Here's something radical: Why not an MMP or closed-list PR system with a 5% nationwide/3 SMD threshold (as in Germany)? Surviving parties would probably include the major parties of the center-left (Margherita as well as the Democrats of the Left, or a possible merger of those two), Berlusconi's Forza Italia, the rightist National Alliance, and the more centrist Union of Christian Democrats, plus possibly the Communist Refoundation and the regionalist Northern League. Yes, the smaller parties would be irritated, but given Italy's persistent instability, this solution is more than justified. [And yes, the Senate also needs to be reformed. In Italy's system where both chambers can hold the government to account, neither house should have an electoral law which disproportionately empowers small fringe parties.]
We may well see another electoral reform soon: President Georgio Napolitano, according to the NYT article, won't call elections until another reform has been enacted. Maybe this time it will finally be a logical one.
[The best overview of the history and intricacies of the system, so far as I am aware, is here.]
While Prodi's Union coalition has a sizable majority in the Chamber of Deputies, in the Senate their majority is only two seats. This means that the Union has to rely on all its senators, including those from far left parties (the Communists and the Communist Refoundation). These parties often have very little in common with the centrist parties (such as the large, more centrist Margherita party or the smaller Italy of Values, among others). The Union coalition cannot cast these far-left parties aside, however, because the electoral system rewards relative majorities--to the extent that 55 percent of Chamber seats are guaranteed to the coalition or party that takes a relative majority. This electoral system was imposed by Berlusconi prior to the previous election in an attempt to manipulate the results.
However, the system is ridiculous. In addition to this 55 percent clause, seats are distributed proportionally to coalitions or parties in the provinces, to all coalitions receiving at least 10 percent nationwide and independent parties with at least 4 percent. Within coalitions, all parties receiving at least 2 percent are eligible, and the top party under 2 percent is also eligible. This is a recipe for allowing small parties to continue manipulating the larger ones--hardly a solution to one of the larger problems of the last electoral reform implemented in the early '90s.
Here's something radical: Why not an MMP or closed-list PR system with a 5% nationwide/3 SMD threshold (as in Germany)? Surviving parties would probably include the major parties of the center-left (Margherita as well as the Democrats of the Left, or a possible merger of those two), Berlusconi's Forza Italia, the rightist National Alliance, and the more centrist Union of Christian Democrats, plus possibly the Communist Refoundation and the regionalist Northern League. Yes, the smaller parties would be irritated, but given Italy's persistent instability, this solution is more than justified. [And yes, the Senate also needs to be reformed. In Italy's system where both chambers can hold the government to account, neither house should have an electoral law which disproportionately empowers small fringe parties.]
We may well see another electoral reform soon: President Georgio Napolitano, according to the NYT article, won't call elections until another reform has been enacted. Maybe this time it will finally be a logical one.
[The best overview of the history and intricacies of the system, so far as I am aware, is here.]
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ontario looks at MMP
Speaking of electoral reform... the Citizens' Assembly in Ontario has decided that mixed-member proportional (MMP) is its preferred alternative to the current first-past-the-post (FPP) system. See DemocraticSPACE (who also designed an MMP system for the purpose) and Idealistic Pragmatist.
Prince Edward Island's electoral reform attempt also would have implemented MMP. B.C.'s option, on the other hand, was for the single transferable vote (STV). [That option, for those who don't know, got 58 percent "yes" votes when it needed 60 percent, so wasn't adopted, but will be back on the ballot.]
This is one of the best aspects of federalism--different jurisdictions experimenting with policy; however, it does wind up being rather uncoordinated. It's certainly possible that we could see 10 different voting systems for 10 provinces, not that there's anything wrong with that. But the clamor is growing in Quebec, where there are three major parties and two growing alternatives, and New Brunswick just had a "second place winner" election in which the Liberals won despite losing the popular vote, so there are certainly other provinces that might be exploring other options.
If Ontario adopts MMP, there will definitely be a lot of pressure on the federal government to at least examine the idea of PR. (Note: the NDP introduced a motion for consideration of electoral reform, which will likely be ignored. But I always wonder why the NDP doesn't make electoral reform their #1 priority in any support deal. Yes, the short-term gains are uncertain, but one would think the long-term survival benefit is way, way bigger than in any other area. ATM fees, for instance... seriously?).
Prince Edward Island's electoral reform attempt also would have implemented MMP. B.C.'s option, on the other hand, was for the single transferable vote (STV). [That option, for those who don't know, got 58 percent "yes" votes when it needed 60 percent, so wasn't adopted, but will be back on the ballot.]
This is one of the best aspects of federalism--different jurisdictions experimenting with policy; however, it does wind up being rather uncoordinated. It's certainly possible that we could see 10 different voting systems for 10 provinces, not that there's anything wrong with that. But the clamor is growing in Quebec, where there are three major parties and two growing alternatives, and New Brunswick just had a "second place winner" election in which the Liberals won despite losing the popular vote, so there are certainly other provinces that might be exploring other options.
If Ontario adopts MMP, there will definitely be a lot of pressure on the federal government to at least examine the idea of PR. (Note: the NDP introduced a motion for consideration of electoral reform, which will likely be ignored. But I always wonder why the NDP doesn't make electoral reform their #1 priority in any support deal. Yes, the short-term gains are uncertain, but one would think the long-term survival benefit is way, way bigger than in any other area. ATM fees, for instance... seriously?).
Taiwanese favor parliamentarism?
Interesting... according to a new poll, a strong majority of Taiwanese would prefer a parliamentary government to the current presidential system. This follows some scandals involving the presidency, and power struggles between legislature and president.
The question is whether this is a permanent feature of the Taiwanese system now or just reflects the unpopularity of President Chen Shui-bian. Unfortunately, there's not a lot more detail, so it's impossible to say from this survey.
The question is whether this is a permanent feature of the Taiwanese system now or just reflects the unpopularity of President Chen Shui-bian. Unfortunately, there's not a lot more detail, so it's impossible to say from this survey.
II República: Portela quits, Azaña takes over
After the election, rumors circulated, according to Gil Robles, leader of the rightist CEDA, that he would retire from politics (see No fue posible la paz, 491-2); order began to break down in some areas as the President authorized Prime Minister Portela to declare a state of war; Calvo Sotelo and others suggested that a coup be carried out, but Franco and Portela declined; Gil Robles tried to talk Portela into staying in office until the second round was held and the Cortes met, but he refused.
Therefore, on February 19, 1936, as it became clear that the Popular Front had won the (last) elections in the Second Spanish Republic, Manuel Azaña, leader of the Izquierda Republicana, the most moderate of the Popular Front parties, was appointed prime minister by President Niceto Alcalá-Zamora. The government was comprised entirely of figures from Republican Left and the smaller Republican Union party, with no Socialist participation.
Therefore, on February 19, 1936, as it became clear that the Popular Front had won the (last) elections in the Second Spanish Republic, Manuel Azaña, leader of the Izquierda Republicana, the most moderate of the Popular Front parties, was appointed prime minister by President Niceto Alcalá-Zamora. The government was comprised entirely of figures from Republican Left and the smaller Republican Union party, with no Socialist participation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
